House of Commons
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
In the first Transport questions since the beginning of the year, the Year of Engineering, I would like to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for all the work that they have done.
The Government want to protect as many community transport services as possible. We will soon be consulting on the issuance and use of permits, and have been working to interpret the scope of the exemptions to the regulations as widely as the law will allow.
Neil Gray
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that the proposal is estimated to cost the industry £37 million and each driver £1,500. It rather seems like the Government have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What does the Minister say to Shotts’ Getting Better Together in my constituency, which provides essential community transport services, yet has no interest in being a commercial entity and could be lost to the community under these plans?
Jesse Norman
I do not recognise the description that the hon. Gentleman gives. I have been up and down the country talking to community transport schemes. It is not at all clear that the implication for local community transport operators will be anything like as severe as has been suggested, and the one case that has been tested has been referred back for further evidence gathering.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for recently visiting my constituency, where he saw the great work being done by Our Bus Bartons. He will know that such companies all over the country are urgently seeking reassurance, but can he clarify whether any action proposed by the transport commissioner reflects upon the consultation that is taking place, or whether the consultation will be taking place in any event?
Jesse Norman
The consultation will be taking place in any event, and the details will be announced shortly. I greatly enjoyed my visit to see the Our Bus group, which is a model of good practice in local community transport.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his appointment. While I understand that the Government have said that they are not going to end the sections 19 and 22 arrangements, the letter they sent out in July last year has caused what the Select Committee on Transport has described as paralysis in the not-for-profit sector. Do we not now need clarity from the Government about what they intend to do, so that they can demonstrate real support for the community transport sector, including for firms such as Shencare in my constituency?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my job. I have actually been in it for a while, so I am sorry not to have made more impact on him, if not on the sector. In that regard, he will have seen—I am sure he has noted it carefully—the testimony that I and one of my officials gave to the Transport Committee, which put to rest the question of whether the letter was inappropriate or had caused difficulty. There certainly has been concern, and rightly so: it is a reinterpretation of the law. Some people may not be compliant, that is true, but the vast majority will be, and we expect the consultation to be successful in further allaying concerns.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
North Norfolk Community Transport says that at the moment it is unable to get new section 19 permits because it has bid for some of its services competitively, but those services are cross-subsidising vital community services and it is doing exactly what the county council urged it to do. These vital services could go under unless that uncertainty ends, so can the Minister give some reassurance urgently?
Jesse Norman
The traffic commissioners are acting speedily and effectively and as a unified group on this issue. I expect the consultation to continue to give—through the proposed exemptions and workarounds that we have been looking at—further comfort to the sector.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
We are investing more than £400 million in the rail network in the south-west. This includes a fleet of brand-new trains for services to Devon and Cornwall, which will enter service later this year, transforming journeys for passengers. We are continuing to work with Network Rail and the Peninsula Rail Task Force to explore the potential for longer-term improvements in the south-west.
Neil Parish
I welcome the Minister to his new job. The Waterloo to Exeter line serves Axminster and Honiton and the southern part of my constituency. It is a great rail line and it needs a second loop in order to get more trains into Exeter and then back up to London. Could the Minister give me details of what is happening with that?
Joseph Johnson
The Devon Metro proposals for enhanced rail services in the Exeter area include aspirations for additional local services between Axminster and Exeter. This is being progressed as a local scheme by Devon County Council, and we will continue to provide assistance as it develops its proposals.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister to his new position. The new Minister will be aware that the Government missed the Christmas deadline for funding the three-minute speed reduction between Plymouth and Exeter. At just £600,000, why did the Government knock back the south-west?
Joseph Johnson
I can assure that hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. We are continuing to look closely at the issue, and we are working on it in the Department and with Network Rail.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. As he will know, one of the key improvements that could be made for my constituents would be the provision of a new station at Edginswell. Does he share the enthusiasm of his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—whom I see further down the Front Bench, in his new post as a Whip—for that project, and does he agree that it would be a perfect beneficiary of the new stations fund?
Joseph Johnson
I do share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. We are currently investing more than £40 billion in our network, including more than £15 billion on rail enhancements, as part of the biggest rail modernisation programme for over a century, and we are always on the lookout for good proposals to support.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his post. When will the electrification programme for the railways in the south-west—including the chunk to Bristol—be “un-paused”?
Joseph Johnson
We are thinking about how we can deliver the best outcomes for passengers, because that is what is important to us. We are delivering the same benefits more efficiently, and at a lower cost to taxpayers. We are delivering faster journey times and better trains, and I think that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the new fleet of 29 Hitachi trains which will serve that part of the country.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Government are committed to improving station access for disabled people, including those with hidden disabilities. Further funding for the Access for All programme will be made available in the next rail control period, and we are introducing new accessibility commitments as part of franchises. In addition, whenever the industry carries out infrastructure work at stations, it must meet current accessibility standards. I must say “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who did a huge amount of work on accessibility across all transport modes.
Dr Cameron
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I have been hearing accounts from people throughout the United Kingdom about a lack of access to both underground and railway stations, which contributes to isolation and social exclusion and also impedes their ability to get back to work—and getting people back to work is one of the Government’s key tasks. Would the Minister kindly agree to discuss with the all-party group the progress that can be made if we work together on the issue?
Ms Ghani
I am aware of the hon. Lady’s work on the APPG. As she will know, I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, and we did a lot of work together.
I believe that 75% of platforms are accessible by steps, but we need to do much more work. All train operating companies and Network Rail are required to have a disabled people’s protection policy as a condition of their licences.
The hon. Lady also contributed to the draft accessibility action plan. There were a number of recommendations, and I look forward to meeting her and ensuring that they are followed through.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Ms Ghani
At present, bus drivers must undertake licensing training to ensure that they are able to deal with people with not just visible disabilities but invisible disabilities such as sight loss. They cannot obtain their competency certificates without that training. I will ensure that the issue is followed up at local authority level, and if there is a gap, I shall be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to ensure that it is dealt with.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I recently undertook a journey on our Bexleyheath line service with a disabled person who was using a wheelchair, to demonstrate how inconvenient it will be when the Victoria line link is removed with the new franchise. She would then have to change at Lewisham, and she says that she would not undertake that journey. Is it right that we are designing disabled people out of our rail service? Will the Minister implore her colleagues to change their minds?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this. It is not acceptable, but I believe that it is going to be addressed later on down the line at Charing Cross. I refer, too, to my earlier response: all train operating companies have to comply with the disabled people’s protection policy, and if they are unable to, they have to provide alternative transport for the passenger, such as an accessible taxi to the next station. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case, I will be more than happy to follow it up.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, principally because of greater awareness and greater ease in accessing compensation, passengers in the Greater Anglia region have received twice as much compensation in 2016-17 as they did in 2015-16.
Vicky Ford
I apologise for arriving late—due to a train delay this morning. We in the east of England are looking forward to our sparkling new trains arriving next year, but in the meantime we often face delays, and when people face delays they should be compensated. Will the Minister look at issues such as when trains are overcrowded and people have to get the next one, or when they are cancelled, and see if we can find some technical improvements?
Joseph Johnson
I am glad my hon. Friend welcomes the new trains. Passengers can look forward to a complete fleet replacement, with over 1,000 new carriages by the end of 2020. This will mean passengers will be travelling on longer and, crucially, more regular trains.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The problems the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) describes as facing her constituents are exactly the same as those my constituents have been experiencing in recent months on Northern Rail. Pleas for a compensation system that recognises that delays might be short but repeated and that trains are often overcrowded so that they cannot even get on them are falling on deaf ears. Will the Minister undertake to take this up directly with Northern Rail since my own meetings with it have produced absolutely no progress on this matter?
Joseph Johnson
That is why it is so important that trains are being extended and replaced. The crucial thing is that, where there are delays, passengers are more aware of, and have easier access to, compensation schemes, and overall across the system over £73 million was paid in compensation in 2016-17, an increase of over 64% over the previous year.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The compensation scheme works on the basis that the delays are an exception rather than the norm. Will the Minister sit down with me, or perhaps follow me on Twitter so that he can see the messages I have had every day since work was resumed after the holidays on south-east trains, with delays and disruption every day on every line?
Joseph Johnson
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns and sympathise greatly with the experience of his constituents and other constituents in that area. The Southeastern service is one of the most congested in the country, and it has been vulnerable to the impact of infrastructure failures. We are working closely to ensure closer working between the operator and Network Rail to secure a reduction of such problems in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Compensation arrangements have to work, so will the Minister outline whether he believes that the compensation system can be streamlined and, importantly, be accessible?
Joseph Johnson
Passengers are accessing compensation schemes far more easily than ever before. That is reflected in the greater take-up of compensation payments, which is growing at a far faster rate than any delays in services. We continue to work with operators to ensure that this becomes easier for passengers to access and we will be looking carefully at that in the next franchise renewals process.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The private sector has generated almost £6 billion of private investment over the past decade, providing new trains, upgrading stations and transforming the passenger experience.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The irony will not be lost on him that public sector satisfaction in the railways is declining as Government influence is at its highest since rail privatisation. What discussions has his Department had with Network Rail to change procurement and design practices so that the private sector can have more influence in funding and financing future projects?
Chris Grayling
I want to see both. We have just announced the biggest investment programme in our railways—over the period 2019 to 2024—since the steam age, including £20 billion of renewals. That is crucial: one of the reasons why we talk at Question Time about train delays is that the infrastructure in many places desperately needs renewal, which is why we are spending £20 billion on that. It is also important that we bring in additional private finance alongside that public investment, and I have been discussing extensively with Network Rail how we can make that happen.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The private sector can only bring in investment if it knows what the Government’s plans for infrastructure are going to be. Will the Secretary of State tell me now what the latest Government position is on the electrification of the trans-Pennine line?
Chris Grayling
I have just received the proposals from Network Rail, and we are now reviewing them. My aim is to start this £3 billion upgrade within a matter of months. The project is due to really get under way next year. We are looking at all the different options but, as I have said, electrification will be part of the programme.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Up until 1992, when the only investment in the railways came from the public sector, rail usage was declining. Since privatisation, we have seen a massive increase in the amount of people using the railways. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because of the changes that the private sector brought in?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not understand the policy adopted by the Labour party. We are now seeing the construction of thousands of new carriages funded by the private sector, and we are getting rid of some of the legacy trains from the days of British Rail that were not up to scratch in those days and are certainly not up to scratch now. That is because private money is coming in alongside our investment programme.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The real question for the Secretary of State is: does he have the political will to ensure that the money is available to invest in the northern rail system in this generation? Not jam tomorrow. Trains today.
Chris Grayling
The answer to that is clearly yes, because every single train in the north of England is being replaced or refurbished as new. All the old Pacer trains are going, and we are about to start the trans-Pennine upgrade, which will account for one third of the total funding available for enhancement on the railway between 2019 and 2024. That is a large investment programme that will make a difference to the north, and it is a sign of our commitment to the north.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Following the sad demise of Carillion, will the Secretary of State confirm that he is carrying out a full review of the HS2 project, including the business case, to ensure that the remaining private sector companies have the capacity to deliver the project without serious overruns and extra cost to the taxpayer?
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend will be relieved to know that the demise of Carillion, a tragic event for this country and for corporate Britain, will none the less not affect the HS2 project. The existing contract is part of a three-company consortium, and the other two companies, Kier and Eiffage, are taking over responsibility for the project. The apprenticeships are being transferred, the staff are being transferred and the project will continue uninterrupted.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On 17 July last year, the day on which Carillion was confirmed in the HS2 contract, I asked the Secretary of State about the financial instability of the company. He declared himself to be confident that the expected results would be delivered. Given the unfolding events of the last few days, has he now reflected and does he now accept that he got it spectacularly wrong and that his judgment and confidence were disastrously misplaced?
Chris Grayling
I do not accept that at all. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the HS2 contract. At the time, I reviewed those carrying out the contracting very carefully, and I have carried out due diligence since. As I said a moment ago, the HS2 project will not be affected by this, even to the point, I am pleased to say, that the apprentices working with Carillion on the project are being transferred to one of the other two partners. The work will continue uninterrupted. There is no delay and there are no cost implications.
Andy McDonald
On Monday, The Times newspaper said:
“The transport secretary’s decision to award lucrative contracts to an ailing Carillion is only the latest worrying misjudgment to come to light.”
It highlighted his trip to Qatar on the day of the biggest rail fare hike in five years, the notorious £2 billion east coast bail-out and his dysfunctional dealings with trade unions in the private sector, saying that the Prime Minister
“needs to consider whether it is time that this transport secretary left the station.”
Has not The Times got it absolutely right?
Chris Grayling
The only station that I am going to be leaving is Euston station for a visit to the midlands this morning. There has been no £2 billion bail-out of Virgin Trains East Coast. The contracting with Carillion was actually not with Carillion, but with a consortium of companies that are equally responsible for delivering the contract and will do so. I am happy to stand here to defend the record of a Government that have done more for our transport system than has happened in decades. That is in sharp contrast with what the Labour party did over 13 years in government, which was very little indeed.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Figures for transport spend in the south-west show a significant increase—part of a pattern, Mr Speaker—totalling £1.7 billion in 2016-17 alone. That spend is helping to deliver a package of investment worth over £2 billion on the strategic road network in the south-west, as well as investing more than £400 million in the rail network.
Rebecca Pow
I very much welcome the commitment to funding for the notorious A358 in my constituency, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State and Highways England listened to local concerns and my calls for a new consultation, which opened just this week with three proposals. However, I would like an assurance that the upgrade will deliver not only strategically, but for local people and for productivity in Taunton.
Chris Grayling
This is an important matter. The A303 and the A358 are a crucial part of our investment programme in the west country, and they will open up a new corridor for people travelling down to the south-west, but they do have to work for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others in the region, particularly for the new employment area next to the motorway in her constituency. I assure her that I will continue to work with her to ensure that the projects delivers both for the region and nationally.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
There is some evidence that trains from Paddington to Bristol and onwards are much better, less crowded and more reliable. However, people face delays and overcrowded and unreliable trains when getting from the south-west to the midlands. Will the Secretary of State put some funding into those lines?
Chris Grayling
I am aware of the particular congestion problems on the CrossCountry franchise. We will be re-letting the franchise shortly, and I want to see longer trains with more capacity for passengers. All of us who travel on CrossCountry trains from time to time know that they are too short for the loads they carry, and we need to find a way of sorting that out.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I echo the concerns about CrossCountry trains. Even outside of peak services, cramped trains are increasingly the norm for my constituents, who are jam-packed into vestibules, and that comes on top of delays and cancellations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that CrossCountry needs to raise its game?
Chris Grayling
I do agree. This is a question, as it is across the country, of ensuring that we have longer trains for the future. That is central to our strategy and is what the private sector is delivering for our railways, and it needs to happen on CrossCountry trains as well.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
On funding, Cardiff Central station—the busiest in Wales—is in urgent need of redevelopment to accommodate expected passenger growth of 22 million in the next five years. This week, our Labour council and the Welsh Labour Government announced their funding contributions and the private sector funding, but the project can go ahead only if there is UK Government funding, too. When will the funding be confirmed?
Chris Grayling
The important thing about Cardiff Central station is that there is huge development taking place around the station. I have met the developers and local politicians, and I want to see there what I want in other parts of the rail network, which is a real integration of station development with commercial development. That should be an absolutely integral part of what is happening all around the station, not just in the station project in its own right, and that is what I want to happen.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Highways England is making good progress with upgrades on the A2-M2 corridor to improve links to Medway and Kent, and the preferred routes for the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junction upgrades were announced in 2017.
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the impressive growth and regeneration that Medway has seen over the past 20 years and will continue to see, I thank the Government for the £6 billion lower Thames crossing. Will the Minister confirm that the supporting local highways infrastructure programme will go along with the project so that areas such as Medway can fully benefit?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the lower Thames crossing is a transformational strategic road project with enormous benefits to Medway and to the region as a whole. We announced the preferred route last year, and we are now developing it further. On the local transport side, it is worth noting that the South East local enterprise partnership has secured nearly £600 million of funding from local growth funds, supporting around 30 transport schemes in Kent and Medway, in order to support the area’s continued economic growth.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Jesse Norman
I would be delighted to come with the hon. Lady to meet the residents of Botley and to discuss these concerns.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Last week there was a horrific crash in my constituency in which a car ran into a parked lorry. Three men have died and one is seriously injured. I am not attributing blame, as we do not know exactly what happened, but the Minister will know that lorry parking is a long-running problem in my area of Kent. Will he meet me and representatives of Kent County Council, drivers and lorry parks to see what we can do to speed up the provision of increased lorry parking?
Jesse Norman
I am very sorry to hear the news of the crash last week. I would be delighted, as always, to meet my hon. Friend and Kent County Council. She should know this is a topic of great interest to me and the Department. Indeed, I met freight operators only this week in part to discuss these very issues.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
Rail passenger journeys have more than doubled in the past 20 years, and journey numbers are at their highest level since the 1920s.
Sarah Jones
Journeys on the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise fell for the first time last year as commuters shunned its shoddy services. The management contract given by DFT means the state has to shoulder a £90 million loss as a result, and Office of Rail and Road figures show that passenger numbers are starting to fall across the country. Is the franchise model sustainable if that continues?
Joseph Johnson
Passengers are switching away from using traditional season tickets to using pay-as-you-go travel. They are choosing more flexible ticket options to suit their lifestyle. Changing travel behaviour may mean that historical assumptions about the number of journeys taken per season ticket are no longer appropriate. Although the number of passenger journeys is reported to have decreased recently, it does not necessarily mean that fewer people are using the railway network.
Dan Carden
Violent attacks on trains have risen by 12.5% in the past year, and sexual offences on trains have doubled in the past five years. A Passenger Focus report in 2014 said that the most important factor identified by passengers is personal security on trains. Wales has guaranteed a guard on every train, and ScotRail has done likewise. When will this Secretary of State take responsibility for passenger safety on trains?
Joseph Johnson
The introduction of new trains across almost the entire network, many of which will have CCTV, will play a significant part in ensuring that passengers can continue to travel safely.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
There is a direct link between competition on the line, usage and lower fares. We welcome the fact that electrification is coming to Corby and I am grateful to Ministers for making that happen. Will they now look at options for extending Thameslink to Corby?
Joseph Johnson
I would be happy to discuss that proposal with my hon. Friend. Electrification can play a part in improving passenger experience and reducing journey times, and it is one of the things the Department continues to look at closely.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
One of the things deterring people from using the railways in the wintry weather we have had over the past few days is the failure of Northern Rail to properly grit some of the stations on its route, particularly Crossflatts in my constituency, making it hazardous for any passenger who wants to use those stations. Is there anything the Minister can do to intervene to make sure Northern Rail properly grits all its stations on the route so that people can use the railways safely?
Joseph Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We continue to work closely with Network Rail to ensure the impact of severe weather on the system is minimised. Across road, rail and aviation, we want our transport system moving whatever the weather.
Mr Speaker
I always thought the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had a substantial supply of grit all his own.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Joseph Johnson
It is northern towns like the hon. Lady’s that are going to be some of the principal beneficiaries of the replaced train fleet across the country. Passengers in her constituency will have improved, more reliable, safer and more punctual services.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are very committed to the northern powerhouse, and to giving the great towns and cities of the north of England more say over transport investment through Transport for the North. This Government are spending more than £13 billion to transform transport across the region—the biggest investment of its kind in the region for a generation.
Jesse Norman
I share my hon. Friend’s pleasure at the potential expansion of air services there, as elsewhere in the country. He should be aware that Greater Anglia provides train services from Southend Airport to London, and the entire franchise fleet is to be renewed, with more than 1,000 state-of-the-art vehicles and with the existing fleet retired by the end of 2020. That, combined with significant timetable changes, should mean that Greater Anglia is able to offer quicker, safer journeys, with reduced journey times, across the whole franchise—we are talking about something like 10%.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Is it not the case that if the Government had not given the £2 billion bail-out to the operators of the east coast line, they would have had sufficient money to fund every electrification scheme that has been cancelled, including the midland main line, and have funds left over?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been no bail-out. [Laughter.] I notice that Opposition Members are happy to quote from The Times, and may I remind them that the Secretary of State responded to the scurrilous editorial piece with a letter of his own setting out the position? There has been no bail-out of any kind.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister to his post. On his opening remarks, may I remind him that there is a north beyond the northern powerhouse, and it is called Scotland? In general, in order to deliver high-quality, reliable rail services, funding needs to be based on the needs of the sector, taking account of future growth, the size of the network and essential maintenance. Does he agree with those sound principles?
Jesse Norman
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the fact that the north goes beyond the northern powerhouse—of course, I entirely agree with him on that. That is why the Government are involved with the borderlands growth deal, the precise point of which is to work with local authorities on both sides of the border. He will be aware that the high-level proposition to the UK and Scottish Governments on that was submitted last year. We will continue to work on that, and of course we will continue to invest in roads, alongside that process, to the extent that we can.
Alan Brown
On the principles I was trying to lay out, Scotland has 17% of the UK rail network but was allocated only 10.4% of the UK spend. The Government regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has stated that £1.9 billion is needed for essential repairs and £2.3 billion is needed to meet future demand. So why was the funding formula cut and why were experts ignored, leaving Scotland with a £600 million shortfall?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there has been a fiscal settlement which has changed over time, very much in consultation with and with the support of the Scottish Government. Of course, any changes to UK funding in England will be followed by Barnett consequentials, with an impact in Scotland.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Well, investment does not seem to be working that well. The Carillion staff working on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston electrification project had their contract suspended this week. So can the Minister clarify this: should all these workers only expect the jobcentre phone number, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, or can he guarantee that these works, and all similar infrastructure undertakings, will continue to completion, with the current workforce, apprentices, supply chain and project plan?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government have made it clear that anyone turning up to work on those schemes through subcontractors will continue to be paid in the normal way. It is important to get that message out there, and not to spread misinformation or misunderstanding about it.
Rachael Maskell
The problem with the Minister’s reply is that the vultures are already circling over the Carillion contract carcases, which will place these projects into future risk, not least as companies such as Interserve and Mitie have had profit warnings served in the last six months. So what due diligence has he instructed officials to undertake of all contractors, and will he end his market speculation by taking these contracts back in house?
Jesse Norman
Had the hon. Lady done her homework, she would know that there is almost no exposure to the rail sector through the companies that she mentioned. The fact of the matter is that the contracts have often been reinforced and proofed. Certainly on the road side, which I obviously know best—I can refer her question to the rail Minister—we have joint-venture partners that are jointly and severally obliged to pick up these obligations, and they will do so.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
In September, we published our response to the consultation on amendments to the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007. It set out proposals to meet the 2020 target and reduce carbon emissions from transport. A draft statutory instrument to implement the proposals was laid before Parliament on 15 January. Subject to parliamentary approval, the legislation will increase targets for the supply of renewable fuels from April 2018.
Dr Williams
Progress on the RTFO is positive. Are the Government ready to introduce E10 petrol, which is already available in France, Germany and Finland? That would also help the UK’s bioethanol industry, which is an important employer in Teesside.
Jesse Norman
I am aware that the industry is an important employer, and it has been a matter of concern to Ministers to ensure that it continues to succeed. I met representatives from Ensus in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in November, and we have been having close conversations with them and others. E10 remains a commercial matter for the fuel suppliers. The RTFO encourages suppliers to use the most cost-effective solution. Our analysis suggests that E10 may not be required to meet the targets, but it may nevertheless be an attractive option for suppliers.
Dr Huq
Abellio’s hybrid buses are generally a plus for the Uxbridge Road, but they are cancelled out by the ComfortDelGro group’s diesel vehicles, which pollute the lungs not only of my constituents on our major thoroughfare but of people all over the country, as they are standard vehicles. Surely the Government should be doing more to encourage best procurement practice and to rid our roads of dirty diesel.
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady will know, the Government are investing hugely in support for electric vehicles and in improvements to air quality across cities and other parts of the country. That is very much with a view to mitigating the effects of diesel fume particulates.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Fuel providers have stated that they require a Government mandate to introduce E10 fuel to avoid a breach of competition law. Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of mandating E10 fuel? If not, will his departmental lawyers work with fuel providers to overcome this legal hurdle?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. He will be aware that we have this matter closely under review, and we are continuing to discuss it with suppliers and forecourt operators. In some other EU countries, there has been no such mandate and there has nevertheless been significant take-up.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
My hon. Friend knows full well that I absolutely understand the difficulties that his constituents have faced. I hope he will accept that performance has improved over the past year, since the height of industrial action. We have had compensation arrangements in place, including the special compensation for past disruption, which saw £13.6 million paid to 58,000 passengers. We have also taken steps forward on the ways to implement Delay Repay and will keep the situation under review.
Tim Loughton
On 2 December 2016, the Secretary of State said in a written statement:
“Southern passengers have suffered from unprecedented and sustained disruption to their journeys during 2016”,
and offered some very welcome compensation for season ticket holders. The problem is that Southern passengers suffered from unprecedented and sustained disruptions to their journeys during 2017 as well. In fact, the punctuality figures for the most recent quarter are even worse. When are my constituents going to be compensated this year?
Chris Grayling
As I said, additional compensation measures are in place now. The issues that network currently faces are all to do with the condition of the infrastructure. My hon. Friend will know that we have just announced two major closures to allow upgrade works to take place, and there is a substantial ongoing programme of investment in that route, which I hope will make a significant difference.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Bedford commuters will lose their fast peak train services in May. Many now do not know how they will balance work with their childcare arrangements. Does the Minister agree that Stagecoach should compensate these people and rail users who, by the Government’s admission, have borne the pain of the changes to the rail network timetable?
Chris Grayling
I cannot promise—I wish I could—no change and no disruption as a result of major investment programmes. The hon. Gentleman will know that the combination of the upgrade to the midland main line and the Thameslink programme must mean, for an interim period, changes to services. There will in fact be more seats from Bedford in peak hours. Of course, many of the east midlands trains arriving at Bedford are already full, so I absolutely regret the fact that we have to inconvenience passengers, but we cannot upgrade and improve the network without taking some difficult decisions.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The estimated number of passenger journeys made on local bus services in England in each of the past three years is as follows: 2014-15, 4.63 billion; 2015-16, 4.51 billion; and 2016-17, 4.44 billion.
Liz McInnes
My constituents regularly contact me to complain about infrequent and unreliable bus services. Does the Minister think that there is a link between that, the decline in bus usage, and the 33% cut to the bus budget since 2010?
Jesse Norman
What is striking is that in many ways there is so much to be optimistic about with the bus industry. When I talk to operators, I see great investments in technology and ticketing, and tremendous potential for the industry in the context of the air quality changes that have been made by this Government.
Kerry McCarthy
In Bristol, more than 85% of routes are provided by First Bus, which makes a healthy profit every year, but under current rules it cannot use those profits to subsidise commercially unviable routes, which may be really important to local people. Why cannot bus companies’ contracts stipulate that they have to run those services using their profits from income-generating routes, instead of letting them pocket the profits while the local council has to foot the bill?
Jesse Norman
It is not historically the job of Government to be intervening in the precise allocation of a company’s profitability. I note that there has been a substantial increase in journeys in Bristol, from 32.7 million to 39.9 million over the past three years. If the hon. Lady has some specific proposals, I will be happy to look at them.
Lilian Greenwood
Mr Speaker, I hope you will not mind if I take this opportunity to record my gratitude to both the emergency services and railway staff for their outstanding response to the fire at Nottingham railway station last week, ensuring that everyone was safely evacuated. Damage was minimised and services were restored very quickly.
Around a quarter of all concessionary passholders’ bus journeys are for medical appointments, yet many struggle with inaccessible and irregular bus services, and seven years of cuts to supported services have only exacerbated those problems. Research from Age UK has found that 1.5 million people over 65 found it very difficult, or difficult, to travel to hospital appointments, and stressful, complicated or expensive public transport journeys inevitably lead to missed or cancelled appointments. Has the Minister discussed that pressing problem with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, and what does he plan to do to address it?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I absolutely associate myself with her support for the emergency services in relation to the fire in Nottingham.
In many ways, the concessionary fare scheme has been a colossal success, as the hon. Lady will be aware. Something like 12 million people have concessionary permits in this country and they make enormous numbers of journeys every year, heavily supported by Government.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Government cuts have led to the axing or downgrading of 400 bus routes, and passenger numbers are now at a 10-year low. Will the Minister reinstate those services, or, if he is unwilling or unable to do so, will he give local councils the power and resources that they need?
Jesse Norman
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Opposition Front Bench, and I thank him for the question. Of course, these services are deregulated and operate, in many cases, in collaboration with local authorities, which receive substantial amounts of funding from central Government. We expect them to deploy that money as they see fit.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Civil Aviation Authority keeps such matters under constant review and has today announced that it will be issuing class 1 medical certificates with a restriction to applicants wishing to become commercial pilots where this is required for safety purposes.
Patrick Grady
The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of my constituent who has been denied his commercial pilot’s licence on the ground that he is HIV-positive. I am not entirely sure what the Minister’s answer means, but I hope it means that he will meet the CAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency very soon to stop them passing the buck, and let this pilot fly.
Chris Grayling
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, my answer means that today the rules are being changed, and while I cannot give a certain outcome to an individual case, people who suffer from conditions that have made it difficult for them to become commercial pilots will find it easier to become commercial pilots, as the CAA takes—I think—a more sensible approach to this matter.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about the emergency services’ response last week. I pay tribute to all those who carried out works across the rail network over Christmas, giving up their Christmas holiday period for the investment programme.
I am proud to be from a party of opportunity. We are a party of opportunity that provided this country with its first woman Prime Minister. Today, we are the party that provides the first Muslim woman Minister to speak from the Government Dispatch Box—my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I congratulate her, and I am very proud to sit alongside her today.
Priti Patel
The Secretary of State will be aware that Essex adds over £35 billion to the economy; but our businesses that want to grow cannot grow, because of poor transport infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend help those businesses by committing to back key projects such as the rail loop north of Witham, investment in the A12 and investment in the A120?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely understand the importance that my right hon. Friend places on transport links in Essex, which is why we are investing both in the county and across the country. Highways England is progressing the A12 improvements, which are now going through the consultation and design stages. On the railways, a number of improvements are required to the eastern main line, and the rail loop is one of those under consideration.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
We are very closely studying the report by Transport for the North—a soon to be statutory body—and we will look at that scheme alongside others.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the guide dogs group to the attention of the House. The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport and opportunities to travel as everyone else. The Department for Transport is currently analysing the responses received to its draft accessibility action plan and will publish the Government’s response in the spring. The final action plan will be published in the summer, and will set out the Government’s ambition for this agenda, based on the feedback provided, and the Government’s timescales for delivery.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Chris Grayling
There has been absolutely no change to any part of the terms of that franchise; as of today, there is absolutely no change. It is business as usual. I have set out in this House the challenges, but as of today, to be clear, nothing has changed—neither the service specification nor the contracts for franchise.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the rail Minister be kind enough to agree to meet the Kettering rail users group to discuss how rail services might be improved to and from Kettering?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
Of course I would be delighted to meet representatives from the Kettering rail users group, and my hon. Friend.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
I absolutely understand the importance for the future of our maritime sector—of shipping goods by sea. Indeed, I recently had the pleasure of visiting Montrose port to see the important work that it does for the east of Scotland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the maritime sector, while often not the highest-profile sector in these questions, is enormously important to this country.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
While many of us were enjoying our Christmas lunches, an army of Network Rail engineers were working hard making improvements and repairs across the country. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating them on their hard work and thanking them for it?
Chris Grayling
We often fail to appreciate the hidden army of people who support our transport system. Those who turned out over the Christmas period—with some extraordinary work was done—deserve all of our thanks. Whether it is the improvements in the north-west, the expansion of Liverpool Lime Street that has taken place over recent months or the extraordinary work at London Bridge, north and south we are seeing huge investment programmes that will make a difference to the passenger experience.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Jesse Norman
I will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and colleagues about that. As he will be aware, the DFT was awarded £77 million at spring Budget 2016 for the upper Orwell crossings. That scheme was one of the first large local majors to be funded. We will happily revisit any discussion he wishes to have on this topic.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that many hospitals around the country do not have good public transport links? For that reason, will he write to the Health Secretary urging him to scrap hospital car parking charges?
Jesse Norman
As my right hon. Friend will know, the first debate I ever secured in the House of Commons was on car parking charges at Hereford Hospital—[Interruption.]
Jesse Norman
I apologise, Mr Speaker. My first ever debate in the House was on car parking charges at Hereford Hospital, so I absolutely understand and share my right hon. Friend’s concern. I am afraid that this has been the legacy of the Labour Government’s investment in private finance initiative projects in hospitals in the period up until 2010.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
Since my appointment, in recent months I have had regular meetings with the US airlines and the US Federal Aviation Administration, and I have met and discussed these issues with my counterpart in the US Department of Transportation. We are making good progress with our successor arrangements for aviation after we have left the European Union.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
On what evidence are the Government now pushing ahead with what I believe to be a flawed plan for expanding Heathrow? The updated national policy statement shows that it is more expensive, lower value, more congesting, noisier, and provides fewer connections. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this?
Chris Grayling
I know how strongly my right hon. Friend feels about this. She and I have had many conversations about it and I know that we will carry on doing so. She and I, of course, do not share the same view—I believe that this project is strategically important for the United Kingdom—but I am happy to carry on discussing it with her.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman will know that his predecessor secured from me a commitment to allow the local authority to use funding allocated for the improvements to the A27 to review what the best options are east of Lewes. I wait to see the response of that work.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
With the initial consultation currently open on “Shaping the Future of England’s Strategic Roads”, will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will look closely at the vital upgrade of junction 15 of the M6, serving Stoke-on-Trent?
Jesse Norman
I can certainly confirm that if that scheme is given the enthusiastic support of the local transport authorities involved, then we will look closely at it, as we would with all such bids.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Chris Grayling
We have two jobs to do for aviation post-Brexit. One is to conclude negotiations within the European Union, which will be part of the ongoing process of negotiating our successor arrangements, and the other is to negotiate successor agreements around the world. We are working on both those things right now.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
On the east coast main line, rather than taking us back to the bad old days of British Rail, as the Labour party’s renationalisation proposals would do, will the Secretary of State instead consider the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations for more on-track open access choice and competition, with the far better quality and cost of rail services that it says would result?
Chris Grayling
There is no doubt that open access makes a difference. I do not think for a moment that those who, for example, live in Sunderland, Middlesbrough or Bradford and have services from Grand Central would say anything other than that open access has been a good thing. That is the area in which the private sector has really made a difference, bringing services to the network that never existed in the days of nationalisation.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
With the Severn bridges at long last coming into public ownership on 8 January, will the Minister meet me to discuss the future operation of the bridges, including abolishing the tolls following the long local campaign?
Ms Ghani
I am sure the hon. Lady, on behalf of her constituents, will welcome the news that this Government are reducing or abolishing the tolls on the bridges. This will make journeys much more efficient and open up the area to much more economic opportunity. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss anything further.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
At a recent meeting with senior HS2 personnel, they promised to provide all MPs along the route of HS2 with advance notice of construction works in their constituencies. They have not done this. Will the Secretary of State ensure that they keep their promises?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely will—no question. I expect HS2 to be good corporate citizens as it embarks on this huge construction project. If there are examples of its failing to do so, I invite all Members to come to me and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who will be leading within my team on HS2. We will want to make sure that, where it is humanly possible to do so, we do the right thing by all those on the route.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
What progress is being made on delivering bus franchising powers for elected Mayors?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Bus Services Act 2017 has created those powers. We are in conversations—my officials are in conversations —with Mayors in Manchester and elsewhere in the country, and we remain very interested in having further conversations with other Mayors who wish to avail themselves of these powers.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
When can we expect a decision on the Transport and Works Act order application for the improvement of the Hope Valley line? The public inquiry was in May 2016 and it reported in November 2016, but so far the Department has been unable to say when we will get a decision.
Chris Grayling
I will seek to gee things along. The Hope Valley line, as my right hon. Friend will know, is one part of the package of proposals—some new lines, some upgraded lines—that Transport for the North has brought forward for the northern powerhouse rail. I will seek to make sure that that process is concluded as quickly as possible.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Government work with businesses that supply renewable fuels to see what impact the renewable transport fuel obligation has on them, and will they continue to look to develop E10?
Jesse Norman
We have already consulted quite extensively, and we will continue to work with those businesses.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
May I welcome the new HS2 Minister to her place and take this opportunity to make an early plea, on behalf of the residents of Erewash who are directly affected by HS2, for an urgent review of the statutory compensation plans for residents and businesses and of the way in which HS2 Ltd is administering this process?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State had a chance to look at early-day motion 775 about taking musical instruments on to aeroplanes? In his coming discussions on aviation, will he take the opportunity to meet the Culture Secretary to talk about how we might solve this real problem for musicians?
Chris Grayling
An airline’s hand luggage policy is obviously a matter for the airline, but I am very happy to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the issue. There may not be a simple solution, but I am always happy to talk to hon. Members about the challenges they face.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her appointment. Following her review of station accessibility, will she look carefully at the hundreds of applications from residents in my constituency for improvements at Stanmore and Canons Park stations which have not been provided by Transport for London, but will I hope be provided by the Government?
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister may be aware that the level crossing in Pencoed in my constituency will now not be improved because of the cancellation of electrification, and that is causing access issues and considerable safety concerns. I made this request to the previous Minister, so will the new Minister now meet me, and a representative of Pencoed Town Council, to start the process of closing that level crossing and improving the highways around Pencoed?
Chris Grayling
Decisions on electrification do not and will not in any way impede safety improvements. We have announced a large amount of money over the next five years, and I am happy to see what we can do to move this issue on rapidly.
Mr Speaker
A very short question is required so, of course, I look in the direction of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is there an end to M3 night closures?
Jesse Norman
As my right hon. Friend will know, these are night closures because of the protections being offered to daytime running. Upgrading of smart motorway junctions has already taken place—junctions 2 to 4 are complete, and work on junction 6 is due to complete soon. Other work on junctions 9 and 14 is planned, but it has not yet commenced.
Mr Speaker
Can the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) match that brevity?
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The previous rail Minister agreed to meet me to discuss the reopening of the railway line to Fleetwood. Will the new Minister honour that and get Fleetwood back on track?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
I am very happy to honour that commitment.
Mr Speaker
Similarly brief, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I will speak quickly. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, 2018 is the year of engineering. Will the new Minister, my fellow Brummie, say what the Government are doing to increase diversity within the engineering profession?
Ms Ghani
I feel obliged to respond to a fellow Brummie. I congratulate the engineering envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who I believe is sitting in the Gallery. The Government have launched the Year of Engineering—I did that myself on Monday at Crossrail—and we are particularly keen to open up engineering as a career for young girls and boys, especially those from black and Asian ethnic minorities. I urge Members to become ambassadors for science, technology, engineering and maths in their constituencies if they have not already done so.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The environmental impact assessment of the Government’s decision not to electrify the Midland main line north of Kettering has revealed that 25 times more savings in carbon emissions would have been achieved with that electrification. If the Government are serious about their new commitment to the environment, will they think again about that decision?
Chris Grayling
I expect to see a transformation of technology on our railways over the coming years, with the introduction of different types of battery electric hybrid trains and hydrogen trains, and I see that as a priority. I want the first hydrogen train to operate on our rail network within a short period of time.
Business of the House
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please update the House on the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for the week commencing 22 January will include:
Monday 22 January—Second Reading of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 23 January—Remaining stages of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of a board member to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of an electoral commissioner.
Wednesday 24 January—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Thursday 25 January—Debate on a motion on joint enterprise, followed by a general debate on the proscription of Hezbollah. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 January 2018 will include:
Monday 29 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill.
Tuesday 30 January—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, followed by motions relating to that Bill.
Wednesday 31 January—Opposition day (unallotted half day), subject to be announced, followed by a debate on motions relating to the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Thursday 1 February—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 2 February—Private Members’ Bills.
Mr Speaker, I am tempted to burst into song at this point, because a little bird has told me it is your birthday tomorrow, but I will spare the House that embarrassment and instead wish you a very happy birthday. And what better way to celebrate than by listening to the debates on tomorrow’s valuable private Members’ Bills proposed by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)? The first will ensure that homes are fit for human habitation and the second will give much greater protection from stalking.
This week we achieved a significant milestone by completing all stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in this place. We wish it well for its Second Reading in the other House the week after next.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business. I note, however, that the restoration and renewal debate will take place after an Opposition day debate, so that allows us half a day. That is quite surprising, given that the Government have tabled two motions, and it is almost like the motions were written for the previous debate. I can only think of a phrase that you, Mr Speaker, will be familiar with from tennis circles: the Government cannot be serious. It is as if the Joint Committee had never met. It took evidence and reported, but all the Government are doing through their motions is noting its report. Will they think again and retable the motions?
Last week, I asked for a list of ministerial responsibilities. I checked with the Vote Office today, and that has not been published, so will the Leader of the House please update the list?
The Prime Minister has made a speech on the environment, yet the Government vote against environmental protection and all the while trash Labour Wales. Let me put the record straight. She clearly has not read the briefing papers, because Labour Wales is either second or fourth in the world for recycling rates, depending on how they are calculated. Labour Wales introduced the 5p charge on plastic carrier bags in 2011; that happened in England in 2015.
Will the Leader of the House please explain why the Government are stifling growth in Wales? There has been no decision on the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. The Government’s own independent report, written by a former Minister, backed the tidal lagoon’s “strong contribution” to the UK’s energy. One hundred businesses and Members from across the parties have called for a decision. When will the Government make a statement on their position, or are they putting politics before people?
Will the Government put people first—before politics—and support the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for a fund to help families with children’s funeral costs? Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the Prime Minister actually said that the cost of burials is for the grieving? That might be right, but if the Prime Minister would meet my hon. Friend, she could explain that the fund would only be for those who cannot afford burial costs. Will the Government follow Labour Wales and do this in Martin Harris’s memory?
Will the Government respond to yesterday’s point of order made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the motion passed in the Welsh Assembly yesterday about retaining Welsh law following our withdrawal from the EU?
It looks like we are back to the “casino economy”—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has left the Chamber, but that used to be his favourite phrase—which brings devastation to people’s lives. Short sellers made £137 million when Carillion’s share price fell by 70% over the course of three trading days following the July profit warning. Hedge funds were betting on the collapse of the shares of a company that provides vital public services. When will the Government make a statement on the urgent steps that they are taking following Carillion’s insolvency? Will they set up a taskforce to support the innocent people who were doing their job on one day, but out of that job the next through no fault of their own?
When will the Government make a statement on why Richard Howson has a pay packet of £1.51 million from December, payable until October 2018, and is employed, while apprentices and other employees are being made redundant? May we also have a statement on why the Wood Group won a lucrative contract to carry out inspections, as the sole supplier, at the Government’s new Hinkley Point nuclear power plant, with Mr Howson as a director? Could the Leader of the House say whether directors’ disqualification proceedings have started against him and the other directors of Carillion?
Banks were the beneficiaries of quantitative easing, so will the Government ask them to quantitatively ease small business suppliers and pay them within the Government’s own deadline of 30 days? Will the Government ensure that the prompt payment code is now mandatory and not voluntary? That is why we need a taskforce, with a grid and a timeframe, as well as a debate so that the Minister can update the House next week.
This week, we remembered Martin Luther King, and it is sad that the President of the United States did not follow the tradition of previous Presidents and do public service. Martin Luther King looked beyond the colour of people’s skin to the content of their character. We also remember Cyrille Regis, who died this week. He looked beyond the racist chants and provided inspiration to many.
We have been offered the Bayeux tapestry. It depicts events in 1066, but we prefer to remember another Frenchman, Jules Rimet, and the events of 1966.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you a happy birthday. I do not know whether you look at the horoscopes, but they say that Capricorns have a secret desire
“to be admired by their family and friends and the world at large”—
it could not be more apt.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very tempted to give an opinion about that, Mr Speaker, but perhaps in private rather than in public. At our recent outing with the Youth Parliament, I certainly think that you had universal approval. Its Members were certainly delighted with your support for them, as are many people right across the country who are very grateful for your interventions to support those who do not always have their voice heard, so I would concede that your Capricornian enthusiasm is being met well.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for her comments and questions, and specifically for her point about Martin Luther King. I pay tribute to her, because she often raises the important progress that has been made on issues of equality. I am grateful to her for that, for what she is doing on the working group on harassment, and for her continual support through it for equality. That is incredibly important.
The hon. Lady asks about the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. The reason for the motions is that we want to be very clear that this is a decision for the House. The House needs to decide whether we can afford to justify the work that undoubtedly needs to take place to restore this Palace—a UNESCO world heritage site, with over 1 million visitors a year—at a time when there are great fiscal constraints. It is a genuinely open decision that the House needs to make, and what the Government have sought to do, taking into account the broad range of views across the House on what should happen, is to put forward, first, an open discussion about whether the House is willing to bear the cost from the taxpayer’s purse. Secondly, if the House does believe that now is the time, we need to think about how can we go about doing these things to ensure the very best value for taxpayers’ money. That is incredibly important.
The hon. Lady asked me to look at the update of ministerial responsibilities. I will absolutely take that point away and do that.
The hon. Lady talks about environmental protections and the work that Labour has done on recycling in Wales. I would point out to her that this Government were a key contributor to one of the greatest and first truly global legally binding agreements to tackle climate change—the Paris agreement. We decarbonised our economy faster than any other country in the G20 during 2016. And, of course, there was the fantastic piece of news that in June 2016, for the first time, wind, nuclear and solar power generated more UK power than gas and coal combined. So the UK as a whole is doing an incredibly good job in decarbonising and tackling climate change. It is also this Government who have kept 9 billion plastic bags out of circulation through the 5p charge, which has generated £95 million to be spent on good causes. That is incredibly important.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of Swansea Bay. As she knows, that is still under review. It is an incredibly expensive project, so it is vital that we get good value for taxpayers’ money.
On the cost of burials for children, I am very sympathetic to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has raised this with me in the Chamber a number of times. I will continue to look at whether more can be done but, as hon. Members will be aware, funeral directors and/or local councils often pick up such costs. The question is whether there should be something more centrally managed to address that, but I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for what is a very good campaign.
The shadow Leader of the House talked about Carillion, which is an incredibly important issue for the Government, as all Members will appreciate. There was a statement just this week from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has made it clear that the Government are working on contingency plans. This is a very troubling time for many employees of Carillion, as well as those who are contractors and those providing public services. The Government will absolutely undertake to ensure that all public services continue to be paid for, and that those employees continue to be paid for the work that they do. There are many different resources for people, including a helpline from the Insolvency Service for businesses and employees who want more information. This is a difficult time, but the Government are doing everything they can, as rapidly as they can, to try to resolve issues and to preserve as many jobs as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, a great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I am keen to accommodate the level of interest. However, it might be useful for the House to know that there is a Select Committee statement to follow, and that approximately 50 hon. Members are seeking to contribute to the two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee later today. Therefore, if I am to accommodate the level of interest, or to get anywhere near to doing so, there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I welcome the debate on restoration and renewal. I also welcome what the Leader of the House said about there being a genuine choice in that debate. It is important to do emergency repairs, but it is also quite right to reflect before we set up a delivery authority, because a lot of public money would be involved and we have to justify to our constituents that this is the right thing to do. May I therefore commend the Leader of the House on her approach?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is right: this needs to be a decision of the House. It is vital that we take into account the value and importance of this building as a historic national icon that attracts many hundreds of thousands of tourists, schoolchildren and so on, and that is, of course, the seat of our democracy. On the other side of the equation, it is vital that we consider the costs to the taxpayer and value for taxpayers’ money.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Happy birthday for tomorrow, Mr Speaker. The card is in the post; you will receive it tomorrow morning. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.
As the repeal Bill heads off to the House of Lords, we have failed to address the devolution-threatening clause 11, even though we were promised that these issues would be dealt with by the Secretary of State in a series of Government amendments. Apparently it is all to be dealt with in the House of Lords—somewhere with which the Scottish people have no democratic relationship whatsoever. I really hope that this will all be resolved properly. To me—[Interruption]—it looks like we are taking power back—[Interruption.] Excuse my coughing; there was a bit of Theresa May about that.
To me, it looks like we are taking power back from, in some people’s words, unelected EU Eurocrats, only to hand it over to unelected Lords, aristocrats and bishops—but I suppose they are British unelected Lords, aren’t they? Apparently, to help the Government to get their Bill through the Lords, 13 new Government peers will be ennobled. And we have the gall to lecture the developing world about patronage and the quality of its democracy! Not to be outdone, apparently we are to get three new Momentum-style Labour Lords. I suppose those Comrade Lords will be donning the ermine for the few.
I suppose we should be grateful that we are at least getting half a day for restoration and renewal, but the Leader of the House seriously needs to think again about the time being afforded. There is huge interest in the issue, and I am already sensing the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) being wound up to spring forward and table a series of amendments. I appeal to the Leader of the House to think about the time allocated and to ensure that we get sufficient time to debate these issues, in which there is great public interest.
Talking about time, we wasted two hours yesterday on the simple process of recording our votes. Throughout the passage of the EU repeal Bill, we lost some 14 hours standing in packed Lobbies doing absolutely nothing. We have to seriously review how we do our work in this place. We have to replace the antiquated relic that is the way we vote in this House with electronic voting. I do not come to this House to stand in packed Lobbies; I come here to debate and to make sure that we participate. That is what our electors expect us to do; the Leader of the House has to get that sorted.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for, as ever, expressing myriad thoughts.
As has been made very clear, amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be tabled in the Lords, the sole reason being the fact that the constructive talks with the devolved Administrations have not reached a conclusion. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is better to get that right than to rush it.
The hon. Gentleman gave his view of the other House, of which he is plainly not a fan. My view, and the view of many Members, is that the other place does an incredibly valuable job in revising and improving legislation. There is some real expertise there, and we count on being able to add it to the work of this elected House. I, for one, support it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about restoration and renewal, and paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for all sorts of jumping up and down. I have not seen my hon. Friend do that, but he and I have had many discussions about R and R, and will continue to do so throughout the process.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned electronic voting. The House has considered that in the past and will keep it under review, but, as we have seen over the last couple of days, after a period when the House has not sat, meeting in the Lobbies and having an opportunity to raise issues with Ministers and other colleagues and share information is often incredibly valuable. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is shouting from a sedentary position that it is all right for us, but I sometimes meet him to discuss issues that are of common interest across the House. I personally feel that the Lobby has a valuable role to play in our democracy.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
One of the roles of the House is to scrutinise the work of the Government. May I ask my right hon. Friend to help me to obtain proper answers to two written questions that I tabled to the Department for Exiting the European Union about the publication of a position paper by the Government on services, which constitute 80% of our economy, and financial services, which will employ more than 1 million people, during the Brexit negotiations? The answers that I have received so far have been sent from an account called “No reply”, and they truly live up to that title.
Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely sorry to hear that, and I shall be happy to take the matter up with the Department on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I should add, however, that—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said last night, when he paid tribute to many Members on both sides of the House—the Government have been shown to be listening very carefully to proposals for improvements to the Bill, and have adopted many of the suggestions made by members of all parties.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
My constituency is plagued by dangerous drivers in high-performance cars. Loopholes in insurance rules mean that, although many are not adequately insured, they are able to abuse the system and stay under the police radar. May we have a debate about closing those loopholes to make our roads safer?
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for raising an issue that is very important to people in her area, as she often does. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss the specific examples that she has in mind.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I, too, welcome the motions relating to the repair and renewal of our historic Parliament. However, given that people and organisations throughout the country are having to make some really tough decisions, will the Leader of the House ensure that, having debated those motions, we exercise financial prudence in whatever decision we make about the future of the House?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to point out that, whatever we do—whether we decide to look at the issue again later in the parliamentary Session, or whether we decide to take action now—at the heart of our decision must be the need to secure the best possible value for taxpayers’ money.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
May I wish you a happy birthday for tomorrow, Mr Speaker? I would guess that we do not yet have to warn the London Fire Brigade about the potential for a conflagration from the cake.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing a debate on restoration and renewal in Government time, but on the basis of the application for a debate on the subject that the Backbench Business Committee has already received, I suspect that a half-day debate may not be sufficient to assuage Members’ thirst, and that a subsequent debate in Back-Bench time may well be necessary. An awful lot of Members are very interested in discussing the pros and cons because whichever option is taken will not be cheap, and there are significant potential costs to the public purse as a result of whichever option we go for.
There is also an important debate this afternoon about RBS Global Restructuring Group, but will the Leader of the House think about having a debate in Government time about banking practice generally in the aftermath of the international financial crisis? I am aware of significant numbers of additional cases involving Lloyds, Allied Dunbar and many other banks in the banking system that have caused grievous problems to SMEs around the country, putting people into penury.
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly, of course, would welcome the Backbench Business Committee deciding to have a further debate on R and R. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the demand for debate on that. If Members want to do a tour of the basement to avail themselves of some very useful information prior to the debate, the engineers stand ready to provide those at their convenience. It is very enlightening, so if you—I am sorry, if Members—I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, have already done it—wish to do that, please do.
The hon. Gentleman raises the important point about the way banks have treated SMEs. As City Minister, I had some grave concerns about that and investigated a number of cases. I am sure that he will have support from hon. Members if he wants to suggest further debates at the Backbench Business Committee.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for awarding me and 19 other colleagues a debate on the restoration and renewal of Parliament on Thursday 1 February because this has now forced the issue and we are now going to have a good debate. Can the Leader of the House say more about that?
If the second motion comes up for a vote because the first motion has not been passed, will the second motion be amendable? The motion I was going to put down for the Backbench Business Committee day debate was amendable, and was on the clear premise that, while we would set up a sponsoring authority, it would be on condition that this debating Chamber should stay in the Palace for the whole time. So if the second motion is passed, it is very important that it is amendable, so that this point of view can be put to the House.
Andrea Leadsom
Because of the seriousness of the decision before the House, the two motions will not be amendable; it will be a case of either the first motion or, if that falls, the second motion.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Today’s Financial Times reports pandemonium at some Carillion construction sites, and at PMQs yesterday there were no answers to concerns about the future of thousands of apprentices across the country, and there is much complexity over the various pension pots. May we have a Government statement on their progress in responding to this calamity?
Andrea Leadsom
We are of course taking every possible action to try to resolve the inevitable uncertainty when a company of this size gets into financial difficulties. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the issues for apprentices. My right hon. Friends are looking very carefully at what can be done. For those seeking advice, a webpage has been set up by the Insolvency Service, and there is also a dedicated website set up by the special managers PwC to provide more information to those individuals. The Government have set up a group to discuss the issues with trade unions and industry representatives, so as to be able to ensure that we get to the bottom of this as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. At approximately 11.40 am we will need to move on to the next business, so may I very gently say to colleagues that although I understand the desire to give some context and preamble before asking a question, Members who now proceed with what is probably a scripted and rather long question will be doing so knowing that they are stopping colleagues taking part? So may I appeal to colleagues to help each other?
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
We need a debate on Carillion. We have had a disaster in Taunton, just outside my constituency, where the roadworks went over time and over budget. It was a shambles. It is time to have a debate now, please.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which the Government are looking closely at. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate on any specific issues that relate to his constituency.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Leader of the House aware that many people believe that the pressure on the health service is partly due to the collapse of the social network support services in our communities? May we have an early debate on what is going on in community support services?
Andrea Leadsom
There are many community support services that do an incredibly good job in further supporting people’s health needs, not least those involving the health implications derived from loneliness. The Prime Minister has announced that we have now appointed a new Minister to tackle that specific issue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that the NHS is now funded even more than it ever has been, with a further £6.3 billion of new funding announced in the Budget. The Government are determinedly tackling the need to recruit more doctors and nurses and to ensure that the NHS is able to meet the very particular demands that it faces this winter.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Did the Leader of the House see the opinion poll last week that showed that 84% of the people want money to be diverted from the overseas aid budget to the NHS? May we have a debate and a vote on this issue, so that we can see how out of touch this House is, once again, with public opinion at large?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that she will ensure that the generosity of the British people towards international aid is put to the best use, and that she will be ever more demanding that we focus on those areas that other Governments cannot begin to deal with themselves. It is important to focus on the UK’s generosity with regard to aid in crisis, to supporting the rights of women and girls and to dealing with some of the problems of the very poorest in the world. It is the right balance that we should give to those who are far worse off than we are, as well as increasing funding for our vital NHS, as we have done.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
May I wish you a happy birthday for tomorrow, Mr Speaker? Last week, I visited the Cudworth food bank, and I want to pay tribute to its work. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on food poverty and on why, following the roll-out of universal credit, this Government think it is acceptable for my constituents to choose between heating and eating?
Andrea Leadsom
I echo the hon. Lady’s tribute to the work of volunteers in food banks. They do a fantastic job. With the roll-out of universal credit, the Government have listened to Members across the House and to Citizens Advice. We have raised the value of advances. We have also ensured that people can get their universal credit on day one. We have reduced the waiting time to nothing and enabled transitional funding for people who are in private housing accommodation. People are always better off in work, but these measures will ensure that, as they transition to universal credit, the transition is made easier for them.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Following the publication of the motions on restoration and renewal, may we have a statement to update the House on what lessons have been learned following the reported cost overruns on the current Elizabeth Tower project?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was extremely concerned to hear about the cost overrun on the Elizabeth Tower. The House authorities were certainly also disappointed, and they have learned lessons. They have tried to ensure that the proposal for an Olympic-style delivery authority to oversee the restoration and renewal of the Palace will reflect the absolute need to ensure that the project, if it happens, is done with the best value for money for the taxpayer in mind and the tightest possible control on costs.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
In 2017, 80 people were stabbed and murdered in London, and there were 37,000 knife-crime offences—an increase of 26%. This is an epidemic and a tragedy, and it must stop. The current approach is clearly not working, and a new approach is required. We need a cross-departmental debate in Government time on how to tackle the root causes of youth violence, so will the Leader of the House schedule time for one?
Andrea Leadsom
All Members are incredibly concerned about the incidence of knife crime, particularly among young people. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that the Home Office is reviewing the matter and taking evidence and will be coming out with proposals for how to tackle the problem.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Jo Cox was a fantastic advocate for improving the lives of those who suffer from loneliness, and it is brilliant that that work will continue through the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness with the support of the Minister for Sport and Civil Society. May we have a debate on what more can be done to ensure that nobody, young or old, finds themselves alone and without social interaction?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right, and I am happy to pay tribute to Jo Cox’s work, which inspired the Commission on Loneliness in her name. It is shocking that more than 9 million people in the UK always or often feel lonely. The Minister for Sport and Civil Society will now take forward the important work that the Jo Cox Commission has started, and I wish her great success. For my part, tackling loneliness is one of my top priorities in my constituency of South Northamptonshire, and we have tried to establish regular coffee mornings in some of my 92 villages, which goes some way towards getting people out to meet each other.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
May we have a statement from the Education Secretary about the completely inexplicable decision by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to reject Exeter College’s bid to continue to deliver apprenticeships in local small businesses, despite it having one of the best records in England? I warn the Government that there will be serious consequences for the provision of apprenticeships in my local area.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about that. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman either to seek an Adjournment debate or to raise the matter at Education questions since it is a very specific point.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
At a time when Cheltenham General Hospital needs capital investment in its emergency department, will hon. Members have the full opportunity to make the point that spending wildly disproportionate sums on this place will be unacceptable to my constituents and risks damaging the very democracy that we seek to uphold?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a keen advocate for his constituency. That is precisely the reason why we need to discuss affordability and value for taxpayers’ money as we seek to restore this Palace of Westminster, which is old and in a bad state of repair.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Following the restoration and renewal debate, may we have a debate in Government time about making this place and all public buildings truly autism-friendly?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a good point. In looking at restoration and renewal, there is no doubt that considering issues such as autism-friendliness and making facilities appropriate for other disabilities will be absolutely vital should we decide to spend the money to repair this place.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement on the sensitivities around domestic violence? My right hon. Friend will know of recent tragic fatal cases in my constituency. Sadly, a senior Labour councillor, Mike Danvers, made a joke yesterday about beating one’s wife and, incredibly, that was supported as a colloquialism by the manager of Harlow and District chamber of commerce. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should condemn that, that the councillor should resign, that the manager of the chamber of commerce should apologise, and that we should be sensitive about domestic violence?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. There is nothing funny or at all amusing about domestic violence, and I certainly agree that people in public life need to be extremely careful about the jokes they make. I reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government are absolutely committed to stamping out domestic violence. We will be introducing a draft domestic violence and abuse Bill. Tomorrow, we will be considering the Stalking Protection Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It is vital that we do everything we can to stamp out domestic violence.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In 2006, Algeria introduced a decree stipulating that permission must be obtained from the state before using a building for non-Muslim worship. Since then not a single permission has been given to build new church premises and many churches have been closed. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement outlining steps to encourage the Algerian Government to cease the closure of churches and to issue permits so that churches can continue?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about religious freedom, as he often does in this Chamber, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to take it further.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
May we have a debate on the importance of the marine environment? Many of my constituents have written to me on this subject. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the excellent steps the Government are taking to ban microbeads?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to share my hon. Friend’s pleasure in the Government’s work on banning microbeads used in some cosmetics and other products. She is right that protecting our marine spaces is vital, and this Government have done so much. We are creating a marine blue belt around our overseas territories, and we are determined to stamp out the problem of plastics in our oceans.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
In a Public Accounts Committee hearing this week, we heard the explosive fact that learndirect did not just take Ofsted to judicial review over its damning report but took out a super-injunction that served to stop Government bodies discussing learndirect during that time. That is outrageous behaviour. May we have a debate on the conduct of companies funded by public money?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has great expertise in this area, and she raises an important point. I can tell her that the chief executive of learndirect has written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on this issue. On learndirect’s specific legal costs, the Department for Education defines what is eligible expenditure of moneys provided for training but, as she would expect, any income over and above that can be used at the provider’s discretion.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend provide for a debate in Government time on the progress of domestic preparations to leave the EU, both with and without a deal?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has the appetite for yet more debate, over and above the 64 hours we have just gone through. There will be many opportunities to have further debates and discussions. I absolutely assure him that the Government are determined to make sure that we leave the European Union in a way that works very well for our EU friends and neighbours and for the United Kingdom.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
This week Public Health England showed that in the most deprived parts of the country that are hit hardest by austerity, such as my constituency in Hull, life expectancy has fallen since 2011, breaking a peacetime trend going back to Victorian times. Can we please have a debate in Government time on why this has happened?
Andrea Leadsom
I also saw that report, which is of course very concerning. As I understand it, there are complex reasons for the fall, some of which are related to lifestyles, loneliness, mental health and so on. It needs to be carefully considered. If the hon. Lady wants to discuss the issues affecting her area in particular, I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
A number of constituents have contacted me asking that the Government stick to their manifesto pledge to replace inclusivity rules that prevent the establishment of Roman Catholic schools. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the new Secretary of State for Education comes to the House to update us on the Government’s progress?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Education has quite a lot to grapple with in his first few days, but I am sure he will be delighted to answer questions on that subject at the next Education oral questions.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I have received some wonderful and moving letters from young constituents at Garnetbank Primary School and St Mungo’s Academy regarding the unfair treatment of asylum seekers and refugees under the current family reunion rules. May we have a debate on all those issues so we can all stand up for refugee children across the world?
Andrea Leadsom
The issue of refugee children is a very grave one, and this country has been very generous in taking in refugee children. As the hon. Lady will know, the UK-French summit is taking place today; there will be further discussions at the summit about refugee children who are trying to cross over into the United Kingdom. We can all be proud of the fact that Eurostat figures show that in 2016 the UK resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member state.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I remind the House that a world heritage site is one that is of great importance to current and future generations across the world. I seek an assurance that in the difficult choices we have to make on the restoration of this building, we will be considering not just our own purposes in this building, but those who visit every year.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is exactly right; that is the choice facing us. This is an incredible building and it is not just of value to us. We have more than 1 million visitors here every year; many tourists come here, and hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren come here as an iconic part of their education. This is one of the most famous sites in the world, so we have a duty, not just to ourselves but to our fellow countrymen and to the next generation of schoolchildren, to ensure we make the right decision.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
One of my communities, Portland Street in Hanley, is being blighted by the sale of black mamba. Drug deals are being done in a BT phone box, conveniently turned away from CCTV. I have asked BT to move it, as have the police and the council, but because of what it is being used for it is making money. May we have a debate in Government time about businesses’ responsibilities to local communities who are suffering crime?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has done a good job in raising this issue in the House today, and I am hopeful that she will see some pretty rapid action as a result. I encourage her to seek a Back-Bench debate on the subject of what more businesses can do. Many of them are very diligent in supporting their communities, but she is right to say that all businesses should be doing the same.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
If we want to make our economy fit for the future and ensure we have the secure, well paid jobs people in my constituency desire and deserve, improving productivity is key. May we have a debate on improving productivity, particularly given the recent Office for National Statistics figures showing the largest quarterly rise in UK productivity since 2011?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is quite right; the excellent productivity news is good, but there is much more to do. Britain’s productivity has long lagged behind that of our competitors and has been weak ever since the financial crisis of 2009-10. That is why our industrial strategy is focused on improving productivity, investing in research and development, improving skills, upgrading infrastructure and promoting the best possible environment for new and growing businesses.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Leaving aside my views on the project, the Government’s approach to restoration and renewal has today moved from circus to farce. It is approaching 18 months since the Committee I served on reported, with clear recommendations. If the Leader of the House is to take this House seriously and wants a proper debate, will she allocate a full day, make sure the motions are substantial and amendable, and come back again to ensure that the issue is given a proper debate?
Andrea Leadsom
It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman says the Government are not taking this seriously. This is a matter for the House; the House needs to decide whether taxpayers’ fiscal issues can be outweighed on balance by the need to restore the Palace of Westminster. It is properly a debate for the House, and Government time is being given to that. Hon. Members will recognise that the Government have moved the date to a Wednesday for the convenience of Members, who made it clear that they did not want this debate to take place on a Thursday. What the Government are doing is facilitating a discussion and a decision by Members of this House, and it is right that we should do that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As the second most fatal cancer, bowel cancer kills 16,000 people every year. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the bowel cancer screening team at Kettering General Hospital on the 10th anniversary of their successful and life-saving work, which has detected 800 cancers and 3,000 potential cancerous growths? May we also have a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care on similar successful initiatives across the NHS?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very happy to pay tribute to Kettering General Hospital for those excellent results. We should all be proud of the Government’s target of better results for cancer patients overall.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am delighted that, as the Leader of the House said, the Government will tomorrow support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on the fitness of housing for human habitation, especially as it represents a damascene conversion from their previous stance. Will the Government also support my private Member’s Bill on the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to private sector companies that undertake public sector contracts? Such an extension might have alerted us sooner to the chaos at Carillion that both the company and the Government kept to themselves for too long.
Andrea Leadsom
I am certainly happy to look into what the hon. Gentleman says. He will appreciate that private Members’ Bills are exactly that and that it is for the Member to seek support from right hon. and hon. Members from all parties. I wish him luck in doing that.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
As we start to debate the restoration and renewal of the House, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that as part of that debate we will consider the safety and security not only of Members and the people who work here but of the people who visit? That is so important.
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, my hon. Friend is right to raise the fact that when we restore the House we will address, largely, some of the issues relating to safety in this place. There are risks from problems with water, electricity, sewage and asbestos, and there are risks of fire and so on. The House is always maintained at a safe level, but there is no doubt that its restoration and renewal would solve those problems for much longer than we are able to ensure with the “patch and mend” approach that we currently have to take.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
In the Welsh Assembly yesterday, Mark Isherwood, a Conservative Member, won by 31 to two a vote on a motion asking this House to re-legalise medicinal cannabis. Will the Government follow suit and give a fair wind to my private Member’s Bill, which would liberate seriously ill people from the threat of prosecution for using their medicine of choice?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has championed this issue in the House. As he knows, the Government keep the matter under review, but it is not our policy to legalise the use of cannabis.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made on improved co-operation on intelligence, defence and security, along with the decision to allow more unaccompanied child refugees to come to this country, which will result from President Macron’s visit today?
Andrea Leadsom
I think we all welcome President Macron’s visit to discuss further co-operation between the British and French. We already have a very strong bilateral relationship with France, particularly, as my hon. Friend mentions, on matters such as security and the migrant situation in Calais. I am sure that updates will be provided to the House following today’s summit.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
My constituent Gemma Hartnoll founded the charity Wings Cymru to tackle period poverty. Too many young people in schools, homeless people and those who need food banks cannot afford sanitary products. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can tackle this very personal and intimate crisis?
Andrea Leadsom
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about this issue, which can be humiliating for young people. I absolutely empathise with her point and encourage her, at least in the first instance, to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can hear from a Minister what more can be done.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Earlier this week, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published an important report on the safety of electrical goods in the UK that highlights some serious safety concerns about 1 million Whirlpool tumble dryers and plastic-back fridge-freezers. The matter requires an urgent response from the Government, so when can we have a statement?
Andrea Leadsom
I encourage my hon. Friend to write to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to seek its thoughts. I would be happy to take up the matter on his behalf.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In the light of the collapse of Carillion, do the Government intend to make a statement on the decision to award the Department for Work and Pensions facilities management contract to Interserve, another company with huge debts and a large pension deficit that has issued numerous profit warnings?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already made a statement, and I am sure that he will make further such statements. The Government are very focused on looking at this from every aspect. I have been absolutely reassured that all Government contracts are kept closely under review, as indeed the ones with Carillion were. As she will know, the decision was taken following profit warnings that Carillion contracts would be awarded as joint-venture contracts, to ensure continuity should something happen. Equally, she must understand that profit warnings in themselves do not mean that it would be legitimate then to rule out a company from being able to accept Government contracts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The pressure is growing for short single-sentence questions without preamble, to be brilliantly exemplified, I feel sure, by Mr Drew Hendry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Government continue to fail to act on the fact that consumers in the highlands and islands pay 2p to 6p more per unit for their electricity than those in other areas due to unfair network and distribution charges. May we have a debate in Government time on how to end the shabby treatment of people in the highlands and islands and other rural areas?
Andrea Leadsom
That is an issue that I was very concerned about as Energy Minister, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, to a large extent, electricity prices in the highlands and islands and the subsidies and extra support are a devolved matter. There were many debates on fuel poverty and on the support available for people through that. What the Government are doing, which is not a devolved matter, is introducing the energy price cap. The Prime Minister has made it her personal priority to bring forward proposed legislation to ensure that people are treated fairly.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Cardiff Central Labour councillor Ali Ahmed is currently in Bangladesh with representatives of the Cardiff Bangladesh association, presenting a £40,000 cheque for the Rohingya relief effort. May we have a debate in Government time on the genocide caused by the Burmese military, which has created the refugee problem in Bangladesh?
Andrea Leadsom
The whole House is very concerned about the humanitarian crisis that has been caused by Burma’s military. Many Rohingya have been killed and more than 650,000 have fled to Bangladesh. The hon. Lady will be aware that the UK is one of the biggest donors to the Rohingya refugee crisis, and the Department for International Development has stepped up efforts with an additional £59 million to support the latest influx of refugees. We had a debate only recently on the plight of the Rohingya people, and she may well wish to seek a further Backbench Business debate to hear more from Ministers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Can we have a debate or a statement on the public services in relation to the retention of pay? As the Leader of the House will know, many staff are leaving their profession—teachers and public service workers—and there have been closures in Coventry. Can she do something about that?
Andrea Leadsom
I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about retention of public sector staff. [Interruption.] Yes. As he will be aware, in the NHS, for example, there will be 5,000 new nurse training places each year starting this September. The Government are committed to ensuring that we retain staff: for example, many more teachers are returning to teaching following a career break. What is important is not just retention, but attracting people back after a period of time and of course getting new people into public sector professions, which is something on which the Government are focused.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the capacity of UK border and immigration MP hotlines? My office needs to urgently raise the case of Gospel Ocholi, a talented young footballer and refugee who wants to take part in a Partick Thistle training academy in Portugal. Can a Minister come to this House and explain how MPs are supposed to raise these cases if we cannot get through to the hotlines?
Andrea Leadsom
If there is a problem with hotlines, the hon. Gentleman should raise it with the Department. I am happy to do it on his behalf if he emails me, and I will take it up for him. With regard to the individual case, he could perhaps raise it at departmental questions.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
This Chamber rightly sees a lot of robust partisan politics, but we should never forget the ethos of public service, which I believe motivates the vast majority of elected representatives in the UK. There was no better example of that than my friend and colleague Councillor Kieran Quinn, the leader of Tameside Council, who tragically collapsed on Christmas eve and died on Christmas day. He was just 56. I know that there are many colleagues who plan to be in Greater Manchester for the funeral on Monday. I ask the Leader of the House to join me in praising the life, work and commitment of local leaders like Kieran, who do an incredible job in difficult circumstances, often at great cost to themselves and their families.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pay tribute to his constituent councillor, and to all those who give so much of their time, very often unpaid or by working extra time that is unpaid, in serving their community. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
May we have a statement about the impact of the removal of employment and support allowance mortgage interest support on people such as my constituent Jonathan Parsons, registered blind, who had paid into the system all his working life?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. He may want to raise that at departmental questions as a specific constituency case.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
TotsBots in my constituency manufactures eco-friendly reuseable nappies, but there have been examples of companies that are falsely advertising and the nappies go to landfill sites. May we have a debate in Government time about false advertising and the damage it causes to parents?
Andrea Leadsom
False advertising is incredibly harmful, and if the hon. Gentleman has examples of such incidents he should certainly raise them with the Department. He may well wish to initiate an Adjournment debate on that.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last Friday, Nottinghamians woke up to the awful news that our recently redeveloped train station was ablaze. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time to consider the terrific work done by Nottinghamshire fire and rescue and the police and council in tackling the fire and having things running again within a day?
Andrea Leadsom
I think we all realise what a debt of gratitude we owe to our fire officers, who do such an amazing job, so quickly and at so great a risk to themselves. I absolutely pay tribute to them, alongside the hon. Gentleman.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
With my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), I would like to request an urgent debate about requiring private companies providing public services to be subject to the same standards of openness and transparency as the public sector, so that companies like Carillion can no longer hide behind commercial confidentiality.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point, again in the context of what has happened with Carillion. She may rest assured that the Government will be looking carefully at whether we can improve processes as a result of this experience, but equally she must recognise that there is great value to the taxpayer in being able to use private sector companies to deliver some services that are of much better value and efficiency to the public sector than bringing them all in-house.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
On 6 December 2017, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave undertakings with regard to an amendment in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. May we have a statement clarifying the record and explaining why it was not met?
Andrea Leadsom
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take that matter up directly with the Secretary of State at Scotland Office questions.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Only Iran and the House of Lords, with its bishops, incorporate religious clerics into their legislatures, and next week in the House of Commons we will have Church of England questions. May we have a debate in Government time about moving away from a medieval set-up and separating the UK state from the Church?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman mentions an extremely controversial idea, which would have significant constitutional implications. As a first port of call, he may well wish to raise that at Church Commissioners questions next week.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, I am grateful for being called last—it gives me an additional chance to exercise. Will the Leader of the House recognise the concerns of hard-working GPs in Plymouth that primary care is in a state of crisis, with GPs working to the point of exhaustion? May we have a debate about the state of primary care?
Andrea Leadsom
GPs do a fantastic job and we are all incredibly grateful to them. We know that they are under pressure. We know that there are numerically more doctors now than ever before, but equally there are greater demands on their time than ever before. That is why the Government have provided an extra £6.3 billion of funding for the NHS at the last Budget, to ensure that we can meet the demands that are being made on GPs and others.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their succinctness in enabling us to finish on schedule.
We now come to the Select Committee statement. The Chair of the International Development Select Committee, Mr Stephen Twigg, will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which—I remind colleagues who have forgotten the procedure, or inform them if they were not aware of it—no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and invite the hon. Gentleman to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. The Front Bench may take part in questioning. I call the Chair of the International Development Select Committee, Mr Stephen Twigg.
Bangladesh and Burma: Rohingya Crisis
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Select Committee on International Development
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me time, on behalf of the International Development Committee, to speak to the House today about our second report of this parliamentary Session, “Bangladesh and Burma: the Rohingya Crisis”.
The scale and depth of the suffering of the Rohingya has rightly given rise to substantial activity in this House. As well as inquiries by my Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have had an urgent question, debates both on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall, and a significant number of parliamentary questions. The International Development Committee is examining DFID’s work in Bangladesh and Burma, and this report is our first output.
The dire circumstances of the Rohingya are of course ongoing. In addition to the £59 million that DFID has allocated to humanitarian aid for the Rohingya, there will doubtless be calls for further emergency relief as this crisis continues. Additionally, DFID’s budget for more conventional, longer-term development aid in Burma and Bangladesh next year will total about £170 million. We are examining that in the next stage of our inquiry.
I pay tribute to the people and the Government of Bangladesh and to the many organisations and individuals who have been working in Cox’s Bazar and elsewhere to assist the Rohingya people. The Rohingya have been devastated by decades of marginalisation and abuse, leading to the events of the past six months, which the United Nations has rightly described as a
“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”
perpetrated by the Burmese security forces. This week we have heard deeply disturbing reports of a possible agreement between the Governments of Bangladesh and Burma to repatriate displaced Rohingya. The potential return of over 100,000 Rohingya to Burma without any clear understanding of their legal status or knowing anything about their final destination is of course of very grave concern.
Early in the conflict, the Government presented a five-point plan to help galvanise the international community into action. The plan involves the cessation of violence by the Burmese; guaranteed humanitarian access to the affected parts of Burma; repatriation, but only on a voluntary basis, with safety guaranteed; full implementation of the Annan advisory committee’s recommendations; and, crucially, full, unimpeded access for, and co-operation with, the United Nations Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission. Our evidence is unequivocal that none of those strands of the plan are anywhere near being realised today.
Our report looked at the previous periods of displacement of the Rohingya and, indeed, other minority groups over the past two decades. In no instance was the outcome satisfactory, and the Committee has little confidence that it will be any better this time. The idea that the Rohingya could be returned to live in internment camps controlled by the Burmese military is surely completely unacceptable.
We welcome the £59 million commitment that the United Kingdom Government have made to respond to the crisis, and, in particular, the swiftness with which that was pledged. However, the Government of Bangladesh have told us that they expect the cost of effective provision of basic services for the displaced Rohingya eventually to total more than £1 billion. The Geneva conference in October secured commitments to provide about a quarter of that sum—£266 million. There is clearly still a huge funding gap, and other donors need to rise to the challenge in the way that the UK Government, to their credit, have done.
We expressed particular concern about large-scale gender-based violence committed by the Burmese military. This is not something new. Predecessor International Development Committees have reported on this, in 2006 and 2014. The Governments of the time, in their responses to those reports, agreed with the Committees’ harrowing assessment about the Burmese army using rape as a weapon of war. Our own evidence heard that this situation is, if anything, worse than ever. ActionAid stated in its evidence to us:
“Girls as young as 5 years of age have been reported to have been raped by multiple uniformed actors, often in front of their relatives. There are reports of rapes being widespread, extremely violent, and accompanied by mutilation. There are reports of pregnant women being attacked and their foetuses removed from their bodies.”
We were very disappointed that the Government seem reluctant to commit their full specialist sexual violence team to the region. This flies in the face of the commitment made by the former Foreign Secretary Lord Hague to give a big focus in UK policy to this issue. In conflicts where rape, sexual violence and torture are used, it is essential that official, contemporary, reliable evidence-gathering by forensic professionals occurs as quickly as possible. The Burmese Government’s claim that they have investigated and that their investigation clears their armed forces of wrongdoing are, in the words of our own Government, “simply not credible”.
There are also issues arising in the camps in Bangladesh. Poor lighting, the lack of privacy around toilets and washing facilities, and the absence of any security for women and girls who work outside the camps have created an environment that is fundamentally unsafe, particularly for women and girls. As we were told in evidence, women and girls are therefore more likely to be victims of trafficking, and more likely to find themselves forced into early—including childhood—marriages.
The most effective way to deal with any crisis is of course to prevent it from happening in the first place. There is nothing new about this situation with the Rohingya. Human Rights Watch has been reporting on the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya and asking for action by the international community since at least 2013. Since 2015, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s early warning project has identified the Rohingya as one of the world’s vulnerable populations most at risk of genocide. The disparity between what the international community was saying about the conflict and what we were told by these civil society organisations is very stark. Its effect is that there has not been the quick, effective response from the international community that might have prevented this from happening.
In fact, our evidence suggests that in some ways the opposite has happened. The continued engagement by the United Kingdom and other countries with the Burmese authorities seems to have been interpreted by their military as tacit acceptance of their treatment of the Rohingya people. We also note that there has been considerable over-optimism about the speed and breadth of democratic reforms in Burma.
In conclusion, the Rohingya crisis provided the international community with an immediate test case for the 2016 consensus reached at both the world humanitarian summit and the New York declaration on displaced people, including refugees. It is clear that the commitments made in 2016 have been tested to destruction by this crisis. It is vital that the United Kingdom continues our commendable commitment to humanitarian aid. The five-point plan is welcome, but it would be totally unacceptable for repatriation even to be considered until we see fundamental change in Burma itself. Surely we owe it to the Rohingya refugees and to the Rohingya who still remain in Burma to continue to give the House’s attention to the crisis. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the House for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue today.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I know there is a problem with UN peacekeeping in the region, but what is the feeling about the Security Council coming to an agreement to put in peacekeepers? There is a dire need for them.
Stephen Twigg
That is a very important question. It falls a little outside the remit of our inquiry, so it is not a matter on which we took a lot of evidence or reached conclusions in the report. The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point, and it may be an issue on which our Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee can work together. Ultimately, if there is to be a point at which the Rohingya feel they can go back, they will need guarantees, and I personally think he is right that peacekeepers could form part of the solution.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I thank the Chair and all members of the International Development Committee for an informative report that goes further than previous reports. Does my hon. Friend agree that there continue to be serious concerns regarding the terms and conditions of repatriation? Where will refugees return to when all their houses and villages have been burned? What human rights protections will people be afforded once they return, and what stops genocide happening again? Surely the British Government must now change their stance, which is more focused on the rights of the Rohingya as opposed to the transition to democracy. The Rohingya must have a voice at the table if we are to achieve democracy.
Stephen Twigg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his passionate advocacy of the Rohingya cause. I know that his constituency contains a significant Rohingya diaspora community, on whose behalf he speaks. I agree that the Government’s approach needs to place greater emphasis on the protection of the Rohingya, and indeed other minorities in Burma—that was what we alluded to when we said that there was “over-optimism” about the pace of democratic reform in that country. I also agree that conditions simply are not yet there, and—to put it bluntly—are unlikely to be there in the foreseeable future, to allow any significant voluntary return of the Rohingya to Burma.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s report—he is a good friend—and I thank him for continuing the work that many of us have taken up on the Rohingya cause and for the work of his Committee in broadening out into various different areas. Does he agree that there are a series of problems in Burma, not least the multiple insurgencies involving different ethnic groups? Focusing on the Rohingya is essential not just because it speaks to Burma, but because it speaks to the wider problem of diaspora and refugee populations. Getting this right is essential, not just for solving the problems in Burma, but for addressing many of the other problems that arise in refugee situations around the world.
Stephen Twigg
I thank my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman who Chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I pay tribute to that Committee for the report it published late last year. We sought to develop and supplement that report, rather than repeat it, and the work of that Committee in describing this crisis as a crime against humanity was an important contribution to the debate. He is right: this crisis is important in its own right, but there are enormous lessons for situations in other parts of the world, including in parts of Africa where there is a massive displacement of people, and the world seems incapable of getting its solutions right.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the powerful way he introduced the Committee’s report. Does he agree that one of the most tragic things for many Rohingya who have fled Burma is the fact that their relatives have simply disappeared? Paragraph 138 of the report suggests that the International Commission on Missing Persons should get involved in Burma and Bangladesh and use their data-matching techniques to try to identify the remains of those who have disappeared, and—hopefully down the line—to ensure proper accountability for these crimes.
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is an active and valued member of the International Development Committee, which he rejoined having previously served on it in a predecessor Parliament, and he is right to draw attention to our recommendation on that important issue. Understandably, in a crisis that has moved so quickly and at such scale, there has been a focus on immediate humanitarian relief, but it is vital that those questions of justice and accountability are also addressed. The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee addressed those issues in some detail. Our report contains an important addition, and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that.
Mr Speaker
I served with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on the International Development Committee for—if memory serves me correctly—four and a half years, and I can testify to the truth and accuracy of what has been said by way of a tribute to his work and his passion for the issues raised.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and his Committee, for their remarkable work. Aung San Suu Kyi was a previous heroine of mine. Has this report analysed why there has been no action from her, and why she has been so unusually disappointing in the tragedy that has occurred?
Stephen Twigg
Like the right hon. Gentleman, everyone on the Committee felt a huge sense of disappointment at the lack of words from Aung San Suu Kyi. It was not the main focus of our inquiry, but we did take evidence on it, as is reflected in the report. Even at this stage, she has an opportunity to speak out and provide leadership. The evidence that we and the Foreign Affairs Committee took from Mark Farmaner, from Burma Campaign UK, was clear that her voice could make a real difference. Of course, we are also saying that in the end it is the military in Burma who hold the reins of power and that it is for them to change, but if she spoke up, I think it would be more likely that they would change their position.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The report is clear in highlighting where the UK Government have been slow to act. I hope they have been listening and, in particular, will now allow these 70 experts in gender-based violence to get out there as soon as possible. Does the Chair agree, however, that particular attention must be given to a clear and decisive plan for repatriation, not just on security and safety but on the legal status of every Rohingya who voluntarily goes back to Burma, and that the international development agencies need to have oversight at each and every stage?
Stephen Twigg
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He is a new member of the Committee, having joined after last year’s election, and serves with distinction. He is absolutely right that if there is to be any sort of process of repatriation we need assurances about the legal status made available to any returning refugees. There is a particular issue about babies born in refugee camps and what status they might have if they return. We say in the report that as well as the Governments of these two countries, we need to listen to the Rohingya themselves, and we need the community leaders in the camps to be heard and to have their say on behalf of the Rohingya if there is to be any possibility of voluntary repatriation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his statement and his Committee for its report. It says that 870,000 Rohingya have fled Burma to Bangladesh since 2012 and that 660,000 of them have done so only since last August. The largest camp, Kutupalong, which I visited with other MPs in November, is now equivalent in size to Bristol but does not have a hospital, has inadequate schools and not enough roads, is one of the most densely populated refugee camps in the whole world and is very vulnerable to an outbreak of disease. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whether the Rohingya are in Burma or Bangladesh, the fundamental problem is that they are stateless and that until that issue is resolved, their rights will never be properly protected?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is one of the most fundamental issues we need to address. The position of those who are displaced and, as he rightly says, the status of those Rohingya in Burma—those who have not fled or who have returned—need to be resolved. The international community needs to take this issue seriously and engage with the Burmese Government on it. He is right to remind the House about the sheer scale of this displacement over a very short period. That is partly why I pay tribute to the Bangladeshi people and Government. In reality, the vast majority will be there for some time, so there is a big job of work to do to ensure that services such as health and education are made available to refugees who—let us face it—are likely to be in Bangladesh for years.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
This is an excellent report, and my hon. Friend rightly praises the Government of Bangladesh for their efforts, but it needs to be recognised that they need not validate the actions of the Burmese army in recognising the permanent status of the Rohingya. That is important if we are to move to the next stage of giving support to the 50,000 women who will give birth this year after being raped and providing more permanent shelter before the cyclone season. This is an excellent report, but we have to move to that next stage and give support to the Bangladeshi Government and people.
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No two situations are the same, but we can learn lessons from other countries that have taken large numbers of refugees. One of the proposals that was made to us, and which we highlight in the report, was for the creation of a special development zone in Bangladesh, similar to what has happened in Jordan, to enable job opportunities for both the Rohingya and, crucially, the host population, the local Bangladeshi population.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
All of us who visited the Kutupalong site had an experience that was overwhelming and heartbreaking. We heard at first hand the terror of the refugees at the possibility of repatriation, and the only possible practical way to achieve that is with support from the United Nations or the British Army. We have a wonderful record of peacekeeping in these impossible circumstances. Is that not the best way, although a very difficult way, to go forward and to ensure there can be a long-term solution?
Stephen Twigg
I thank my hon. Friend. In a sense, that question takes us back to the question from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) at the beginning. I absolutely agree. One of the dangers with these crises is that they hit the headlines for a time, and then the attention of the media and the political world moves on. It is vital that we do not allow that to happen. This is about addressing the crisis now but also being there to support long-term solutions, and a potential role for UK peacekeepers is part of that.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and the Committee for this important report. He and other colleagues have talked about the trauma that has been suffered by victims of sexual and gender-based violence and by those who have lost relatives without knowing whether they will ever know where their remains are buried. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the immediate need for humanitarian and medical aid, there will be a real need to give priority to long-term psychotherapeutic services for the victims in Bangladesh and for those who return to Burma?
Stephen Twigg
I very much agree. [Interruption.] Welcome to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raised this issue yesterday at Department for International Development questions, in the context of Yemen. The excellent organisation War Child has made the suggestion that at least 1% of all humanitarian aid should be spent on mental health and psychosocial support. For anyone who has been through this sort of conflict, and for children in particular, it is vital that they get that support.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
I do not have a question, but following agreement with Mr Speaker a moment ago, I just want to say thank you to the Chair of the Select Committee for his work and to the members of the Committee and those who have spoken today. There will be a response from the Government in due course in the usual manner, but, of course, the matter will be a subject for discussion for some time to come.
The Committee has rightly put a spotlight on a situation that is unlikely to ease soon—a desperate situation. I want to assure the House that it is a matter of focus every single day for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID. That is true of not only the plight of the Rohingya at the moment—I was in Geneva last week to speak to international organisations about that—but the need for a solution for them, and that remains a priority for the Government. I thank the hon. Gentleman and colleagues again for the report.
Backbench Business
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before we begin today’s debates, I should point out to the House, though it is obvious, that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon, and we obviously have limited time—just under five hours—for two important and heavily subscribed debates. Sometimes on Thursdays, we are a little bit lenient with time, but the recommendation from the Backbench Business Committee is that the person moving a motion should take around 15 minutes of the House’s time. Over the last few weeks, that has risen to well over half an hour, but today I am going to enforce the 15-minutes—or thereabouts—limit. That means about 17 minutes, not 27. I should also warn the House that, after the motion has been moved, there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches, initially of five minutes, but that is likely to fall to four minutes. This is good; it is because there is so much interest in the subjects that we are debating this afternoon.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is deeply concerned by the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland; notes that there are wider allegations of malpractice in financial services and related industries; believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds; further believes that a solution requires the collective and collaborative effort of regulators, Parliament and Government; and calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them, and the rapid establishment of a tribunal system to deal effectively with financial disputes involving SMEs.
May I echo your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker? As generous a soul as I am when it comes to interventions, I will limit the number I take to two or three, if at all possible, because I understand that Holocaust Memorial Day is also a crucial issue that everyone here would want to see debated fully afterwards. None the less, there are a lot of Members here, on both sides of the House, who want to speak about an issue that has deeply affected many of their constituents and small businesses across the country. I thank hon. Members for their support for this important debate, as well as the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time, particularly the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). He has made it clear to me and others that he was keen for the debate to take place, and here it is.
As the details of the various scandals that have hit our financial services sector trickled out over the last few years, I think we all started by treating the stories we heard with a certain scepticism. They just did not seem to make sense. Indeed, when I read letters from one of my constituents, my first reaction was to think that the story he was telling simply could not be true. “No bank could have dared to behave in such a brazenly outrageous way,” I said to myself. My constituent, Andi Gibbs, was forced by his bank, RBS, to buy an interest rate-hedging product, which should have protected his business against rising interest rates, but in fact drained it of cash. RBS then placed the business into its Global Restructuring Group. He lost his business, his home, his marriage and, I think it is fair to say, almost his sanity. His crime: nothing more than being an entrepreneur who banked with RBS.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the RBS Global Restructuring Group had real cultural problems? When its top tips included the advice,
“Rope: Sometimes you just have to let customers hang themselves”,
there is clearly something very wrong occurring.
Clive Lewis
I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that 16,000 small businesses were put into GRG from 2008, and the vast majority were liquidated. That tells us all we need to know. This was meant to be somewhere from which they could try to come back as viable businesses, but far from being an intensive care unit, it was more like an abattoir, where they were stripped and taken apart.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why many Members found this story almost unbelievable—a story that affects so many of our constituents—was that the conditions of any settlements agreed by the GRG with businesses that were in trouble included gagging orders, or confidentiality agreements, which have prevented them from speaking openly about the plight that they have faced?
Clive Lewis
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, some businesses ended up in GRG simply for saying, “I’m not happy with my bank. I want to move.” When we talk about how they were “stressed”, we should also be aware that the bank used this term as it saw fit. Many businesses were treated appallingly, and the hon. Gentleman raises the point very clearly.
As time has gone on, we have discovered that Andi Gibbs is not alone. He is not even one of hundreds, but one of thousands. As many Members will be aware, the stories keep coming, backed up by evidence. It has now become clear that we have not just a series of individual scandals, but a full, systemic failure that needs to be addressed by this House. However, I want to focus briefly on what got us here and, more importantly, how we work toward a constructive solution.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my disgust that, four and half years after I referred, as Secretary of State, many of those cases—the Tomlinson report—to the Financial Conduct Authority, we still have only an interim report? Is he aware that the BBC has seen a copy of the final report? It contains the following incriminating phrase:
“Management knew or should have known that this was an intended and co-ordinated strategy and that the mistreatment of business customers was a result of that”,
and the head of GRG responsible for that policy, Mr Nathan Bostock, is now chief executive of Santander.
Clive Lewis
That is a very valid point. I hope we will hear from the Government today that there will be action on this issue. Owners of small and medium-sized businesses, including many of my constituents and those of other Members, are tired of the foot-dragging that has gone on for long enough. The Treasury Committee supports the report’s publication, and even the Financial Conduct Authority would probably conclude that it would be far more helpful for it to be published. Its publication is long overdue. People need to see the full extent and scale of what RBS and, potentially, other banks have been up to.
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend said earlier that this situation affected failing businesses. My constituent Andrea Willows is in the public Gallery today. Her business was not failing, but the bank absolutely refused to provide any kind of funding for a shorter-term loan payoff, attributing it all to a larger loan pay-off instead. She had to come up with the full cost of multiple loans to pay off about £635,000, which made things completely impossible for her. That is exactly what these banks have done: they have made it impossible for hard-working people to continue to run their businesses although they were not in trouble in the first place.
Clive Lewis
I agree with my hon. Friend. During my time on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and as a Back-Bench MP before that, I heard many similar stories of companies that had been forcibly distressed, or had been described as being distressed by the bank and then carved up like a Sunday roast.
Clive Lewis
I will continue.
As many Members will know, the stories keep coming, backed up by evidence. It is now clear that we are seeing not just a series of individual scandals, but a full, systemic failure that needs to be addressed by the House.
Let me now focus on how we can move forward. The APPG on fair business banking has identified a series of achievable and transformative objectives that will support our business community. My focus today, however, will be on dispute resolution, restitution, and the need for an independent financial services tribunal with the teeth that will enable it to tackle complex and, for the individuals involved, life-changing scenarios.
I want to touch briefly on the past, because it is important to separate the crises into two distinct phases. The first crisis, in 2007-08, was a crisis of liquidity. The second, which we are discussing today, is a conduct crisis that not only spans the financial services industry, but extends to the role of the professional advisers who are such an integral part of the system. They are Law of Property Act receivers, surveyors, accountants, insolvency practitioners and solicitors. They are all fundamental parts of this matrix, and I will return to them shortly.
The recent section 166 FCA report on RBS GRG concentrates on the years between 2008 and 2013, when banks were under extreme pressure to shore up their balance sheets. However, that behaviour did not spring up spontaneously. Senior banking insiders who worked in RBS between the mid-1990s and the crisis are clear that there was such a modus operandi in GRG for years before the liquidity crisis. Indeed, GRG and its predecessor, Specialist Lending Services, had been known as the “mortuary for businesses” since the late 1990s. During those heady days of liquidity, businesses might have had an opportunity to re-bank with competitors, but once the liquidity crisis hit, that was no longer an option Ever since then our business community has had to deal with the consequences, which have been ramped up to an industrial scale.
Although the title of the debate refers to RBS GRG, it is just a symptom of the underlying issues. In the course of the APPG’s work, it is hard to identify an institution that has not found itself at the centre of a conduct scandal, and I am sure that other Members will give many examples today. The APPG has come across similar instances among the major banking institutions. The HBOS Reading fraud, as a result of which bankers and their associates were jailed for a total of 47 years earlier this year, may seem easy to push aside as “a few bad apples”, but, in reality, it is a consequence of the same systemic failure.
Clive Lewis
I will make some progress first.
In the HBOS case, as with GRG, quite simply, everyone thought that they would not get caught, and so it escalated. We have to ask ourselves how it is possible that this has gone on for so long, completely unchecked. We should have caught it much sooner, but instead it has been left to a dedicated group of individual victims such as Paul and Nikki Turner—and to a relentless pursuit by journalists such as Andy Verity, Joe Lynam, Siobhan Kennedy, James Hurley, Jonathan Ford, Ruth Sunderland, Tom Warren, Ian Fraser and Heidi Blake, to name just a few—to keep the issue alive. That is the journalism that the British public need: journalism that investigates the acts of the powerful and holds them to account. It is the fourth estate playing its rightful role in a healthy, functioning democracy.
Even now, as we begin to get our heads around the issue, we are still not addressing it properly. Why? Because our response thus far has been piecemeal. We must take a step back, and look at the entire ecosystem in which such behaviour managed not just to survive, but to thrive.
Let me briefly remind the House of the possible scale of the scandal. At its peak, GRG held assets of more than £90 billion on its books—all the businesses that were put into special measures. We cannot know for sure how many of those businesses would have survived in another, more benign environment; that is a “how long is a piece of string” question. Indeed, some businesses were placed in GRG for no other reason than the fact that they had made a complaint against the bank. We have to ask ourselves how many of them should have been there in the first place.
Much has been made of the fact that the businesses were “distressed”, but that is a subjective and ambiguous term. We do know that 90% of GRG-administered businesses never made it back to mainstream banking. That is a very high proportion. The cost is immeasurable, but we believe it to be in the tens of billions. Let us be clear: that is the potential size of the injustice that has taken place in our country. If it is indeed that big, it may be the largest theft anywhere, ever. If we begin to take into account the opportunity costs to the economy of business failure and businesses that have been unable to grow—if we begin to include the loss of jobs, homes, health, relationships and taxes—we see that the costs are likely to be immeasurable.
Scandals on this scale cannot happen in a vacuum. The role of Law of Property Act receivers, solicitors, insolvency practitioners and surveyors must be considered. Even in circumstances in which every person playing a part has played to the letter of the law, the outcomes have been catastrophic. We have to ask ourselves how that is possible.
As things stand, a business owner understandably assumes that the whole system works effectively, and that when it fails, he or she will have access to justice. That is a logical assumption for those of us who believe that all aspects of our lives should be covered by the rule of law. Anything else is little better than the Wild West, and is no basis for the stable and successful economy that Members in all parts of the House want to see.
The House must tackle the inherent inequality of power in the relationship between businesses and their lenders. From the moment when a business signs a one-sided contract laden with onerous and ambiguous contractual terms, through its life cycle, and into—potentially—insolvency, there is nowhere independent and affordable for that business to go if it is in dispute with its lender. In all cases, businesses must rely on the limited scope of the financial ombudsman, various trade associations and individual institutions to handle complaints. What is the outcome? The public, and businesses, see a group of large, powerful institutions and trade bodies operating from behind castle walls, with no transparency or external accountability, save an expensive and prohibitive court process that is beyond all but the most well-resourced. Justice, for them, is out of reach, and RBS knows that.
When ad hoc redress schemes are set up to deal with scandals such as interest rate hedging products, GRG and HBOS Reading, they are wholly unsatisfactory and largely discredited. They appear to be a cynical exercise in limiting financial institutions’ liabilities rather than a genuine attempt at restitution. The fact that the entire exercise is conducted behind closed doors and the banks are allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner only fuels suspicion. The use of an “independent person”, whom the bank itself appoints, will never instil trust. It is akin to a burglar being allowed to pick the members of the jury for his trial.
To add insult to injury, in the cases of the interest rate hedging product scheme and the RBS GRG scheme, the fact that insolvency law allows the institutions to pay themselves back for their own misconduct brings the process into the realm of farce. It is a system that does not instil confidence. The best our institutions can say is, “Trust us, we’re doing the right thing; but if you don’t like it, sue us.” We have only to look at the content of the debate today to see that self-regulation alone is simply not enough.
I want to be clear: those of us who support this motion are not calling for extensive regulation. We are, however, calling for accountability, transparency and justice, because without proper transparent accountability there can be no trust. Ultimately, trust is what the financial sector depends upon; if we undermine and pollute it, it will never survive in the long run.
The cold fact is that right now in this country the trust that once existed has been shattered. This distrust has become so severe that it is affecting business confidence and productivity. The Government’s own industrial strategy cannot be delivered on these shaky foundations. Simply, if we are to move on, we need to get a handle on the issues and look at the whole ecosystem for our businesses. That is why today we are calling for an inquiry that cuts across departmental lines and looks at the protections afforded to businesses during their life cycle. That way we can map out a long-term plan to ensure sufficient safeguards to prevent such things from ever happening again. More urgently, we are calling for a tribunal system to be set up to deal with financial disputes, a system analogous to that which already exists for employment tribunals. That does not require any primary legislation. The legislation already exists to enable the rapid establishment of a tribunal; it just needs the political will to carry it through.
Andrew Bailey at the FCA has openly supported the tribunal idea, but we are concerned about the recent focus on extending the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service as this is not the right solution for what is a very complex problem. Once established, this tribunal system will help to ensure that banking works better, not just in the interests of its customers, but for the banking industry itself. This is important because we all acknowledge that the financial sector is critical to the UK’s future prosperity, and the relationship that SMEs have with their bank is a central part of that. In an effectively regulated economy, the relationships between SMEs and the finance sector should be symbiotic, not parasitic; each supports the sustainable growth and the success of the other. But that is not where we are.
It is time that the Government, the FCA and Parliament step up to the plate to ensure that businesses get fair treatment and access to affordable justice. Our businesses deserve nothing less. Our economy requires nothing less, especially at this critical time with Brexit approaching.
This matter has been left to drift in the regulatory and legislative wilderness for too long. The consequences have been catastrophic not only to individual lives but to confidence in our entire financial system. In the wake of Brexit, the introduction of a tribunal system will help to rebuild the strong relationships that once existed between SMEs and their banks, helping the growth of our economy and the international reputation of our financial sector.
It is, however, important to say that constructive progress has been made. The banking futures project brought together stakeholders across the spectrum to produce a coherent and ambitious plan for rebuilding trust. If Members have not read it, I would certainly suggest that they do so. The all-party group on fair business banking and finance has formed a working group, which will be formally announced in the near future, to discuss and look at this area. We should have no doubt that this is an important first step for businesses and industry, but it is just one part of the jigsaw, for with a problem this big, only a systematic, open-minded challenge to the status quo will work for businesses, our banks and our economy. This is an opportunity for us to show the business community and, indeed, the country that behind the lively exchanges that take place here and are seen on television, we as parliamentarians can put aside political point scoring and come together and work toward a common goal. I therefore commend this motion to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There will now be a time limit of five minutes.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). I congratulate him on securing this important debate, with the support of the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), at the Backbench Business Committee hearing. The fact that so many Members are present on a Thursday for this debate shows how many of us have constituents who have been affected by the RBS Global Restructuring Group, and their problems are the reason why we are here. The debate is being watched closely both in this House and outside. I pay tribute to my constituents who have been affected and the many other people who have contacted me. As the hon. Member for Norwich South said, people have lost their homes, their health and their marriages, and in some cases far more than that.
As we heard from the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), it is now more than three years since the publication of the Tomlinson report, which led to the FCA’s decision to appoint an independent investigator to look in detail at what happened at GRG. The previous Treasury Committee, under the chairmanship of Andrew Tyrie, took evidence from Mr Tomlinson and RBS. RBS then had to apologise to the Committee for giving misleading evidence about the role and objectives of GRG. The Committee pressed for disclosure of the findings of the FCA’s independent review. The new Treasury Committee in this Parliament, which I am privileged to chair, has been determined to continue the work of its predecessor, hence the number of documents tagged with this debate listed on the Order Paper.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that apologies simply are not good enough? For the many of our constituents who have suffered in their business interests and personal lives, we need this inquiry and tribunal so that we achieve justice for our constituents.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend makes an important point with his customary passion, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to talk about the tribunal, but he is right that there are significant losses, some of which cannot be quantified. However, sometimes just starting by saying sorry can take the sting out of the situation, but we are still waiting for that.
Faced with the FCA’s continued refusal to publish the section 166 report, my Committee appointed an independent QC to review the summary and to make sure that it was an accurate reflection of the full report with no material omissions. The FCA’s final summary was finally published on 28 November 2017. Although it is written in neutral and technical language, it exposes a litany of poor conduct, mentioning “insensitive, dismissive and…aggressive” relations with customers and
“a culture of deal making…that set little store by the interests of customers”.
It also referred to “inadequate and inappropriate” complaints handling and a failure to handle “inherent” conflicts of interest—the list goes on. Just yesterday, in a letter to me, RBS published its 2009 “Just Hit Budget!” memo, which we had already heard about. That lifts the lid on a culture at RBS, however much it tries to distance itself from that.
Given all that, it is unfortunate that the FCA and RBS decided to state that
“the most serious allegations made against the bank have not been upheld”
when the FCA published its interim summary. I think we all agree that what happened is still very serious, and I am sure that many firms agree.
It is also disappointing that RBS—again, pressed by the Treasury Committee—has disclosed that it does not accept many of the findings. In particular, it disagrees that inappropriate treatment of SMEs was “systematic or widespread”. RBS appears to be isolated on this, with the FCA supporting the conclusions of the independent review.
The Committee will take evidence from RBS and Promontory, the firm that conducted the review, very shortly. I encourage all Members who have not yet sent us evidence on behalf of constituents to do so. While the Treasury Committee does not consider individual cases, we will keep RBS’s feet to the fire over the functioning of its redress scheme.
I agree with the spirit of the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich South, too, because he is right to look at not just what went wrong, but the future, as the second half of the motion does. For small, financially distressed businesses, as he said, what we have is not a partnership of equals, but an unbalanced and potentially exploitative relationship in which banks can use their legal and financial firepower to ensure that their interests prevail over those of their customers.
As we have heard, the FCA told the Committee in October last year that it is considering broadening the scope of the Financial Ombudsman Service, but there is concern that the Government might not be prepared to consider a legislative solution. I would welcome the Minister addressing that point. The House will have to seriously consider whether the FCA solution is merely a sticking plaster, and if so whether the responsibility falls to us, as parliamentarians, to consider what legislation might be required.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have read the exchange about this matter between the right hon. Lady and the FCA. Does she agree that it is a real concern that that correspondence conveys the impression that the FCA is rather intimidated by the potential actions of RBS? Should it not be the other way around?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Yes, of course it should be the other way round—the FCA is the regulator. While this is about an individual case, it is of course also about the wider message that is sent about the system of regulation and lending to SMEs.
As we have heard, one of the solutions could be a new dispute resolution regime for SME financing. I recently discussed such a proposal with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the all-party group on fair business banking and finance, which has done important work in this area, on which I congratulate it. Another possibility would be to bring corporate lending of a certain size within the regulatory perimeter, thereby allowing the FCA to consider taking action against firms directly for any failings. Those are not mutually exclusive suggestions. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to publish the Treasury’s analysis of the costs and benefits of moving the regulatory perimeter on small business lending. I would also welcome confirmation that the Treasury does not rule out a legislative approach to establish a new tribunal or to introduce a perimeter change, if either were deemed appropriate.
The GRG was a warning that all was not well, but at the moment only the advent of the FCA’s senior managers regime is preventing such cases from arising again. I hear constituents and others saying that they will never trust a bank again and never ask a bank for money again, and this should be a chilling moment for all banks involved in lending to and working with SMEs. Bank lending is an important part of this country’s financial infrastructure, which was why the then Government stepped in during the financial crisis in 2008. I assure the House that the Treasury Committee will continue to consider the options available to provide further protections to SMEs in their dealings with the banks.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing the debate. It is also a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
For me, the most alarming aspect of the whole issue of the banking sector’s treatment of SMEs is the conspiracy of denial that has existed between banks and their professional advisers. That has been reinforced by the very institutions that are supposed to regulate the financial sector. My constituent Mr Kash Shabir is a victim of what is at the very least grossly unethical practice—it is much more likely to be criminal fraud—at the hands of Lloyds bank, the same bank that was behind the HBOS Reading fraud. His case is a lead case, having formed the backbone of an inquiry by the then Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in March 2015, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and of two Westminster Hall debates that I led, on 16 September 2015 and 18 April last year.
When lending to Mr Shabir was no longer attractive to Lloyds after the financial crash, it reneged on its lending commitment, relying on an alleged breach of the loan to value covenant. That breach was then justified by a down-valuation of his property portfolio, which was worth in excess of £10 million. The valuation was provided by Alder King LLP, a firm of chartered surveyors whose employees were embedded in Lloyds bank and then rewarded with lucrative LPA—Law of Property Act 1925—work. The substantial evidence that I have considered over the past three years leads me to conclude that criminal acts have taken place, followed by a cover-up by the parties concerned.
The senior management of Lloyds, Alder King and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have all refused to meet me and Mr Shabir to discuss his case. None of them has the guts to sit in a room with me and my constituent to listen to his legitimate complaint. The approach taken—primarily by Lloyds, but also by Alder King—has been to use the gross power imbalance that exists between SMEs and the big banks to bully and belittle SME victims to the point at which at least one victim has taken his own life. The big banks hold all the power. They have an army of expensive lawyers. They obfuscate and delay, knowing that if they keep batting away their victims’ complaints and concerns, those individuals will eventually capitulate because they have no other choice.
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. She and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) have both referred to the HBOS Reading case, in which guilty verdicts were delivered on 30 January last year. Does she share my concern, and that of my constituents who have been affected by this, that there has still been no settlement with Lloyds bank a year after those verdicts were delivered? This reinforces what the hon. Lady is saying.
Jo Stevens
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Statutory limitation periods are run down through deliberate delays by the banks. They know that they hold all the financial cards. How can any of their victims afford to litigate to seek proper redress when they have already lost their businesses and homes as a consequence of the banks’ actions?
Melanie Onn
That is absolutely correct. Earlier I mentioned the case of a constituent who has spent at least £45,000 trying to tackle an injustice of which she is so undeservingly the victim. That has used up all her husband’s firefighter pension.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend provides a powerful example of that gross imbalance of power. Legal expenses insurance is also extortionate and therefore out of the question. My constituent was quoted a premium of more than £1 million for insurance cover for his litigation against Lloyds. These are deliberate tactics by the banks to prevent their victims from getting redress, and they absolutely stink.
All the time this is happening, Lloyds senior executives present a public face of claiming to know nothing of what has gone on. I have copies of letters written by Members of this House in 2014 to the Lloyds chief executive and the regulators, formally alerting them—if they did not already know—to the irregularities in that bank. Lloyds itself commissioned an internal report in September 2013—the HBOS and Lord Turnbull report—which highlights many acts of criminality, as well as confirming that the bank knew about the HBOS fraud as far back as 2008. The chairman and the chief executive of Lloyds have both maintained that they had no knowledge, but I do not believe those assertions to be accurate. This prompts the question that if the bank had knowledge of the fraud in 2008 and the HBOS convictions took place in 2017, why did the bank pursue personal guarantees on those fraud victims for nine years until the case went to trial? There can be only two answers to that question: either the bank is entirely incompetent; or those running it have not been honest. I am calling today on the Lloyds chair and the board to publish that report in its entirety.
Following the conviction of the six HBOS individuals who are now serving a combined prison sentence of 48 years, why has there been such a failure by Lloyds to compensate its victims? Similar practices have been shown to have been prevalent in the Bristol offices of Lloyds, but as yet no police force has carried out a proper forensic investigation. Anthony Stansfeld, the police and crime commissioner behind the successful HBOS convictions, is determined to see a full and proper investigation into Lloyds Bristol and has passed evidence to Avon and Somerset police. I am calling today on its chief constable to expedite an investigation.
As evidence of abuse by the banks and of conspiracy with their advisers grows by the day, the banks cannot say at the highest level that they were unaware of what was happening and somehow insulated from the abuses that were taking place. The chief executive of Lloyds, Mr Horta-Osório, has made many public statements—that to the Evening Standard on 17 May last year is just one example—saying that he was unaware of the victims’ complaints before the Reading fraud trial. However, I understand that the Turnbull report confirms both his and the Lloyds board’s knowledge of HBOS criminality. I also have a letter dated 22 May 2014 from the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), written when he was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, confirming that he met Mr Horta-Osório to discuss my constituent’s case, and that Mr Horta-Osório had assured him that
“he had looked into the case personally”.
It appears that Mr Horta-Osório is not as remote from these victims’ cases as he claims.
It is imperative that we have a full inquiry into the actions of Lloyds and the other banks we have heard about today, and that should include a consideration of individuals’ culpability. It should also compel full recompense to those who have been affected by the abuse. Such full recompense should be the subject of genuine independent third-party administration, not the charade that has developed around Lloyds’ handling of the victims of the HBOS Reading abuse. That is why I support the establishment of an independent tribunal system and the motion before the House.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this debate. I was pleased to be a member of the Backbench Business Committee when his application came before us, because such debates show the House at its best.
I have a confession to make: I am a capitalist. But I am a capitalist who believes in a system that depends upon sound financial management. The dishonest practices and systemic mismanagement by RBS in this case fundamentally undermine capitalism. We know that the behaviour of the bank was wrong, both legally and morally, as reported and evidenced in the Tomlinson report and the FCA’s skilled person reports. The injury to individual businesses and the business banking system as a whole has been compounded by the system of redress, which is judged to be inadequate by many.
Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House today, I have constituents who have been affected by this case. Just one such example of malpractice was the forced liquidation in 1998 of Pickup and Bradbury Ltd, a company formerly owned by a constituent of mine, Mr Eric Topping. Pickup and Bradbury was a building and joinery company based in Stockport. It was a business customer of RBS and, like many other businesses, used an overdraft to manage its cash flow. In 1998, the overdraft was £345,000—not an unreasonable amount for a business of that scale—and the company had been happily trading and growing under that arrangement for several years. Then, in February 1998, RBS wrote to Mr Topping saying that it wanted to reduce the overdraft facility to £200,000 and, moreover, that the company owed the bank over £700,000—a figure that is still in dispute today.
Unable to operate under more restrictive conditions, the company was moved into RBS’s Global Restructuring Group, according to RBS, to help it to repay the money it owed. While under the administration of the GRG, the bank’s advisers consistently undervalued the company’s assets, while simultaneously overvaluing its liabilities, to support its claim the company was unviable and, in July 1998, it forced Pickup and Bradbury into receivership. The GRG engineered the fall of the company by demanding aggressive repayment plans and allowing insufficient time for company directors to appoint independent valuers to prove the worth of the company’s assets and its solvency. Mr Topping believes the difference between RBS figures and his own was around £2 million.
Knowing that time is short and that many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute, I will move on from that case and put some questions to the Treasury Bench. A scandal such as this, just like LIBOR before it, is yet another reason why people and businesses lose faith in the banking sector. Faith in the banks is essential for faith in our whole capitalist system, which I have hitherto been proud to defend. This scheme was organised fraudulent asset stripping on a massive scale, leading to the forced liquidation of many businesses—companies that people had poured a lifetime of effort into and which were their livelihoods. In the case of my constituent and many others, those businesses were their nest eggs for retirement. RBS likely made billions from the activity, but how many lives and livelihoods did it crush in the process?
We on the Conservative Benches in particular rightly tell the country we stand up for hard-working people. Mr Topping, and hundreds of business owners like him, are just such hard-working people, yet they have had their assets stripped by RBS and now have very little to show for it. It is time that we stood up for them. I have some questions for my hon. Friend the able and newly appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury. While Her Majesty’s Government have a controlling stake in RBS, what is he doing to ensure that the bank does the right thing by its former customers, both by the law and by the sense of common decency on which all civilised business ultimately depends?
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, but may I ask him to widen his ambition? My constituent Derrick Cullen was the victim of Lloyds bank, so it is clear that the conspiracy was not confined to one bank, but was industry-wide— the lies spread across the industry. On that basis, the Government should do more than use their powers on a nationalised bank; the action must be systemic across the whole banking system.
Mr Wragg
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the broader practice in the banking sector. I have confined my remarks to RBS given that it was a constituency case, but he is absolutely right and perhaps draws on the work of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance. I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Norwich South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for their assiduous work on that APPG.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) is generous in allowing me an extra minute through his intervention, but I have only one more sentence to say to the Minister. I will put it as simply as this: what does my constituent have to do to get back the money that was stolen from him?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I remind the House that there are no extra minutes. There are only 24 hours in a day, and we cannot add more minutes by taking interventions. The minutes have to come from somewhere else. Gosh, everyone could do with a spell in the Treasury.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
Perhaps I should begin with the confession that I am not a capitalist, but I do share the hope of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for fairness. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this debate. The motion primarily relates to RBS, but it acknowledges that the problem goes far wider than just one bank. At the heart of the motion is the proposition that several banks deliberately managed the closure of businesses to protect their own interests and in doing so prioritised the realisation of assets over any other outcome. The Tomlinson report, about which we have already heard, suggested that the banks had a deliberate strategy to artificially distress viable businesses, to engineer loan-to-value ratios to cause a breach and to revalue assets downwards to trigger a default. The banks had all the power and businesses had no meaningful recourse, and professional advisers were either ineffective or took the side of or even aided the banks.
In the brief time available to me, I want to highlight two constituency cases. The first is Mr Graham Stewart, a builder and property developer, who was courted for his business by Lloyds bank in 2003. His accounts were successfully managed locally and regionally at first, but then the fateful decision was made to transfer his accounts to the Bristol business support unit, and that is when his troubles began. The review periods on his loans were shortened, repayments were doubled and charges were added at every single stage. He was told to sell some properties and to use Alder King, Lloyds chosen valuer, which systematically undervalued his properties. When he complained, his loans were called in. I understand that some of the banks may have accessed the enterprise finance guarantee scheme to cover their losses, and advisers got their fees, but my constituent was left with huge debts. He had never missed a payment and had never been in arrears.
My second constituent is Ben Warren, who was an Allied Dunbar client. Allied Dunbar was sold to Zurich Financial Services Ltd in 1998 after several mis-selling scandals, and parts of it were sold on a decade later. The deposit book was attractive, the loan book less so. Despite assurances to clients that they would not be materially affected by any transfer, within 14 days of the transfer, 95% of loans were declared to be impaired. That affected 300 people, including my constituent. A third were pushed into bankruptcy. The companies protected themselves at every stage by betting on the financial market. My constituent described it as like selling a car and then betting on whether it would break down. Mr Warren has a very simple question for the Minister: why does the UK allow companies based in offshore tax havens to manipulate small and medium-sized enterprises in that way? It certainly seems like systematic manipulation. To many, including myself, it looks like criminality.
The HBOS Reading fraud cost Thames Valley police £7 million to investigate, so where are the resources for such a Herculean task as investigating this situation? Allied Dunbar victims went to Northumbria police’s economic crime unit, which said that it lacked the resources to investigate and directed them to the Serious Fraud Office, which then sent them back to Northumbria police’s economic crime unit. We need accountability; we need transparency; and we need justice for the victims, including compensation. As we have heard, we need to protect SMEs in the future with a more effective tribunal system. Finally, and importantly, we need the Treasury Committee to continue to take a keen interest in the matter.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a member of the Treasury Committee, I can assure the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) that the Committee is taking a keen interest.
In 2016 an RBS document leaked to the BBC proved that
“staff were asked to search for companies that could be restructured, or have their interest rates bumped up.”
Yet in November 2017 the FCA announced its conclusion that RBS had not set out to “artificially engineer” SMEs to fall into the GRG and that
“there was not a widespread practice of identifying customers for transfer for inappropriate reasons, such as their potential value to GRG”.
All I can say is, what absolute balderdash, and I will explain why.
In February 2009 I received a telephone call from the RBS bank manager who was looking after the accounts of our self-storage business in Edinburgh. He simply said that we were going into default, that our interest rate would immediately be put up to 6% above base, that RBS was looking into other issues and that we would be going into GRG. We had not breached any covenants, so I asked him for an urgent meeting. RBS had competed with Lloyds for our business, and we had a term loan on a building in Edinburgh, the Jenners depository, of which I was then, and remain today, the major shareholder. That term loan was 1% over base, and of course banks did not want term loans of 1% over base in February 2009.
We got the meeting. The bank manager came in and said he had remodelled our management accounts and that we were breaching covenants. I tried to find out how we were breaching covenants, and he could not tell me. When my bookkeeper was looking over his shoulder as she gave him a glass of water, she spotted that he was using the management accounts of February 2006, some three years previously, to claim the breach, so I showed him the door and did not hear from him again for three weeks, when he came back and told me that we were in breach of our covenants because our building had devalued by 40% and that we were immediately being moved to interest of 6% over base.
I called the bank manager in for another meeting and said that we must get the building revalued. Other Members have mentioned Alder King and others. Self-storage is a very specialist business and RBS wanted just to use its own valuer. I smelled a rat and insisted that a self-storage valuer was used. RBS said that we had to bear the £15,000 costs, to which I responded, “Here’s the deal: if the valuation remains the same, which is fine for our covenants, or goes up, you pay it.” RBS was confident the valuation would go down. When the valuation came back, it had doubled and RBS had to pay the costs. Needless to say, RBS was livid.
The manager disappeared from our radar and RBS proceeded to make things as difficult as possible for us because, as I said, no bank wants a loan of 1% over base. We then tired of RBS and moved our term loan to Handelsbanken, obviously at increased expense but we had lost faith in RBS.
I later learned from a bank manager who had moved on to a different role that after the October 2008 bail-out—when Fred Goodwin had left and Stephen Hester had arrived—we were an unsuccessful part of what was called “project dash for cash.” The plan was to seize assets through perceived default, and between 2007 and 2012 more than 15,000 companies were moved into GRG to await their fate. From my own experience, I have no doubt that many of those customers were not treated with proper care and attention.
I also have no doubt that the FCA’s conclusions, to which I referred earlier, are wholly wrong and that there was a widespread practice of identifying customers for transfer to GRG for inappropriate reasons.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
What are my hon. Friend’s conclusions about the culture that prevailed in RBS at that time? Does that culture continue to this day?
Mr Jack
I do not know whether it continues to this day because I no longer deal with RBS, and I would not deal with it again on principle. The culture at the time was disgraceful. My business was making a profit when RBS came in, and it has made a profit every single month since. That is a good example of how RBS tried it on.
I was lucky to be in a robust enough position to send RBS packing. None the less, it was a very stressful and unpleasant experience. For a variety of reasons, countless thousands were not as fortunate, and many lives were needlessly ruined by the disgraceful and unscrupulous behaviour of RBS bank managers across the country. Those customers deserve proper redress. I support the motion.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The testimony we just heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) was incredibly powerful and valuable.
I speak as a co-sponsor of the debate, and I agree with every word of the opening statement by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). The revelations in the report of the independent review are absolutely shocking, and that is without the revelation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) that the full report says
“Management knew or should have known that this was an intended and co-ordinated strategy”.
Why was that left out of the report’s summary? It potentially makes the FCA complicit in the cover-up, which is incredibly serious and needs to be considered.
Even without that, the report of the independent review highlights systematic failures, which in itself is an incredibly important conclusion. There was a failure to fully recognise and manage the conflict of interest between GRG’s twin objectives of turning around businesses and making a financial contribution to RBS. The review concludes that the commercial objective had been the strategic focus of management. That prompts the question: was GRG just incredibly stupid, or did it know exactly what it was doing? If it did know what it was doing, it amounts to theft of assets from people who, in many cases, were running entirely viable businesses—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) described it as asset stripping. These were people who had grafted throughout their adult lives to build up their businesses, which were destroyed by this outrageous behaviour. It is an extraordinary scandal.
The catalogue of unacceptable behaviour outlined in the review and exposed by brave whistleblowers demonstrates an absolutely rotten culture: victory emails celebrated taking assets off businesses; there were incentives for staff to take more money off stressed businesses to boost their bonuses; and what of the role of lawyers in managing the conflict of interest, or of the accountants, or of the auditors? Who was complicit in this scandal? That is why the hon. Member for Norwich South said we need an inquiry to find out who is culpable.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He mentions the relationship between the FCA and RBS. Is he aware of the leaked minute from an FCA board meeting that says that one of the reasons why the FCA will not release the full report is that it is concerned about being sued by RBS? Does that not raise the question of who is regulating whom in this relationship?
Norman Lamb
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We rely on the regulator to be powerful and tough in such situations.
The human cost is incalculable. People have been driven to suicide and marriages and health have been destroyed, but who has been held to account for this disgusting behaviour? People and businesses ruined must have justice. I say to the Minister that an independent tribunal is essential. It would act as a deterrent to bad behaviour; banks would know their actions have consequences if they knew it would go to an independent tribunal.
My constituent Mark Wright is an RBS whistleblower. His career and his health have been destroyed. He and others are the heroes of this sorry story, risking everything to do the right thing, yet he has also been horribly let down by the regulator. The FCA, including its chief executive, Andrew Bailey, dismissed his concerns, but this week he won a vital victory when the complaints commissioner ruled that the FCA was wrong to reveal his name to RBS. What cavalier disregard of a whistleblower’s rights! The FCA fought the complaint all the way, only apologising right at the end. The case was brilliantly pursued by Steve Middleton, who deserves enormous credit. He is now setting up, with others, Bank Confidential—I declare an interest in that I am a patron—to protect whistleblowers and expose wrongdoing.
The truth is that whistleblowers have no real protection in this country. Contrast that with the situation in the United States, where the Dodd-Frank legislation introduced the Office of the Whistleblower, which is there to protect whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are rewarded financially for doing the right thing—they are awarded between 10% and 30% of the sanction collected against the firm, which can run into millions of dollars. What a contrast with the position in this country! We need our own office of the whistleblower, and whistleblowers should be guaranteed anonymity; they should be rewarded for their bravery. Maintaining the integrity of the banking system is of fundamental importance to us all, and whistleblowers are necessary for that purpose.
My fear is that in the aftermath of the crash in 2008, all the focus of the banks, the regulator and Government was on rebuilding balance sheets, and a collective blind eye was turned to how that was achieved and how many victims were left along the way—business owners and whistleblowers. The Government and the FCA now need to act to clear up this scandal and to get new arrangements in place to rebuild trust in British banking and give justice to those ruined by this outrageous behaviour.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I welcome this important debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing it.
I am conscious of following a very powerful speech. I think Members on both sides of the House will be horrified and sickened by the contents of the RBS memo, and I congratulate members of the Treasury Committee on putting it in the public domain. Gloating and cruel, it is a symbol of a profoundly sick culture within that bank. To give RBS its due, let me say that I welcome its £400 million compensation fund and the complaints procedure presided over by a former judge, but there is still a long way to go. Sadly, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the issues raised by RBS are not confined to that bank. The solutions we need are industry-wide.
One of my constituents had an experience with HSBC of exactly the same kind as those experienced in RBS cases. His lighting business had a cash-flow problem, which was no fault of his—indeed, it was partly the fault of the bank for authorising a payment which he did not believe could be authorised. His secured loan was turned into an overdraft and then he was offered a nine-year sustainable loan to work out of the debt, on the condition that he first paid a one-year loan without being chased for it. He did that—he did all the right things—but the nine-year loan was never forthcoming; instead he was offered a series of one-year loans at increasingly high interest rates, with increasingly high charges. In effect, he was made to work on an ever-faster-moving treadmill just to stand still. This was a perfectly viable business and a very hard-working man who has done a good job. In 2014, the financial ombudsman finally ruled against HSBC, saying that it should restructure the loan on the original terms that he had been offered and repay all charges made.
There are two disturbing aspects of this case. The first was the bank’s fundamental approach to this small business: this was not relationship banking and it was not an attempt to build a company over the long term; it was an attempt to sweat it for everything it was worth and to push it towards bankruptcy. The second and even more disturbing aspect was the bank’s response to the ombudsman’s ruling: instead of complying with the clear spirit of that ruling, the bank seized on an imprecision in the ruling to try to retrospectively force a much more onerous loan on to my constituent. After a second successful appeal to the ombudsman, the bank will still only offer my constituent a loan on far more onerous terms. As a result, nine years on, he is still in dispute with the bank. His life is on hold and his home is under threat, but despite everything he has managed to keep the business going—good on him, but it is not thanks to HSBC.
For victims of RBS GRG and other banks, we need a profound change in the culture of small business lending in Britain. I agree with many of the suggestions that other hon. Members have made. We need an ombudsman or regulator that banks are more frightened of, with stiffer penalties and clearer, quicker and more specific remedies. Since 2010, we have made real progress in reforming the banking sector: we have replaced the tripartite system that failed so spectacularly; we have seen the Vickers report and the ring-fencing of retail banks from investment banking; we have ended “too big to fail”; we will see bankers stand trial next year for their role in the financial crisis; we have introduced higher capital requirements and safer banking measures to increase competition and encourage challenger banks; we have the new open banking, the tougher bank bonus clawback regime and the bank levy. Despite all the good work that has been done, there is still a lot to do. The next reform made by the Treasury must be to put in place a stronger regulator and ombudsman, and to secure justice for our small businesses.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate everybody involved in bringing this important issue before the House for debate today. I was first confronted with some of these issues in my former incarnation as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, when a number of the cases outlined by Members today were brought to my attention. As I studied them, my first instinct was that these were just isolated cases of maladministration and that banks could not possibly be behaving in such a way, which one would assume contravened not only any sort of ethics or sense of fairness, but the law itself.
Further investigation and consultation with other Members demonstrated that what I thought were one or two isolated incidents of maladministration were in fact part of a national problem resulting from a culture that obviously prevailed within the financial services industry, and that in many ways was propped up by other professional and corporate organisations—valuers, receivers and so on—who were making money out of it. Therefore, I particularly welcome the emphasis a number of Members have put on pointing out that, although this motion focuses on RBS, this is a general and systemic problem, as was determined by the fact that about 60% of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises was done by two big banking conglomerates, Lloyds and RBS. They, by their actions, set the culture and tone of how banking has dealt with small businesses and the way small businesses perceive the banks.
I applaud the motion, because it makes it clear that although RBS may have implemented some remedial actions, this is a general problem that needs a general solution. I read the minutes of the Treasury Committee interviews with Andrew Bailey of the FCA, and one of the most astonishing things I read was the regular comment made by him that such actions were “outside the regulatory perimeter”. What an astonishing thing for somebody in charge of the organisation designed to implement regulation to acknowledge: that for a long period banking practices had actually gone on outside any sort of regulatory perimeter. One would reasonably expect such a body to be pressing the Government to pass the necessary legislation to alter that position. In part, these huge personal, economic and business problems have arisen because of the failure of that body to make that case.
In the past, like many other people, I assumed that banks giving loans to business did so because there was a mutuality of interest: the bank would make money, the business would thrive and the country would thrive via the economic benefit that that would bring about. Instead, a process has been built into our economic system by which the organisations that were supposedly providing the lifeblood of our economy—driving productivity, investment and so on—were in fact destroying it. Indeed, their future depended on their destroying, through corporate theft, financially sound businesses that were providing employment and contributing to the economy.
The Orwellian name of the Global Restructuring Group hides the fact that it was effectively death row for businesses, and its structure was mirrored by other banks. All that underlines the proposals in the motion that imply that the Government, through the FCA, must impose a far more rigorous regulatory environment to drive the change in culture that is so necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My constituent Dean D’Eye and his family and friends have been terrorised by insolvency professionals working for GRG and Dunbar bank. Mr D’Eye’s life’s work has been taken away from him. He had a development company in south London that had a value of £140 million, as well as a thriving youth-hostel business that employed 100 people. Dean D’Eye’s father and step-mother, Derek and Ann D’Eye— 82 and 71 respectively, and also constituents of mine—have been evicted from their home, and numerous other family members and friends have been attacked using predatory litigation tactics. The whole D’Eye family faces complete wipe out.
It all started 16 years ago when Mr D’Eye became a customer of the Romford lending division of NatWest, which is now part of RBS. NatWest funded his investment business and he was mentored on business development by Dunbar. During the third quarter of 2008, GRG started to hound him, despite his never having missed an interest payment and at a time when interest rates had plummeted. GRG thus managed to get him into insolvency by 1 June 2009.
The loss of a large proportion of the group’s cash flow started to cause issues with Dunbar bank, which was by early 2010 starting to experience significant problems itself. The Zurich group moved the bank to its centrally managed business division, which was headed by Mr Colm Holmes. Mr D’Eye, who is present in the Public Gallery, has described the business division as an extortion racket. As is evident from this debate, the GRG’s tactics are becoming well known, but I wish to highlight Dunbar’s far more aggressive actions and the systematic destruction of its clients’ former loyal staff, long-standing suppliers and valuers. I am pleased that the Treasury Committee is looking into the matter.
Mr D’Eye describes the current situation with respect to small business lending in the UK as utterly unsustainable, and I think we all agree. Financial institutions have been allowed to run riot with demands for personal guarantees in all aspects of business, and the limited-liability company may well soon head into extinction. If we combine that with the fact that banks do not seem to be trusted and have not been brought to justice for their actions, we have the perfect storm for SMEs. UK productivity cannot improve without a thriving SME sector. We have some of the best entrepreneurs in the world, but we must sort out the banking infrastructure on which they rely—as well as getting justice for those poor devils who have suffered so much as a result of the banks’ actions.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
If we do not agree today that there is going to be justice for all those people who have been damaged by the banking crisis—by the illegal actions that have taken place across the banking sector and among the organisations that worked alongside the banks, including the valuers and surveyors—all the distrust of this House will be valid. It is in our power to give those people justice, and that justice must start today.
My constituent Mr Smith ran a small engineering company and had banked with NatWest for 12 years. He took out a £180,000 mortgage on a new building. He reduced the mortgage because his company was doing well; in fact, it was worth £220,000 fairly quickly. He decided to invest in new equipment to help him to expand. Unfortunately, when the bank agreed to fund the investment in new equipment, it put a second charge of £80,000 on his home, assuring him that it was not a problem because the bank would always negotiate with him if his company had any difficulty.
There were rumours that the bank needed money, so Mr Smith asked the bank manager whether things were okay, but he was assured that it was as safe as houses. As we know, though, the bank collapsed, and within weeks the flow of work into Mr Smith’s company also collapsed. A contract worth £30,000 was closed down literally overnight.
Mr Smith then had a problem with the Royal Mint, which was supposed to make a payment into his bank account on the Wednesday but rang at the last moment to say it would be made on the Thursday. Unfortunately, Mr Smith had arranged to pay suppliers on that same Wednesday. Instead of doing what it had always done previously, which was to act reasonably and say, “Don’t worry about it,” the bank charged him £600, adding to his financial problems.
The situation quickly became a huge problem for Mr Smith. He started to get phone calls from a few departments at the bank. [Interruption.] I am sorry about my phone ringing, Madam Deputy Speaker! In fairness, it did seem like it was RBS calling. The bank was calling Mr Smith to ask him to come in to discuss his loans. That was when he entered the GRG bracket. In the end, he was forced to close his business.
Despite Mr Smith’s attending court on numerous occasions and being a litigant in person, RBS often did not send people, or appeared badly prepared. It was only when I finally managed to get through to the bank and criticised its actions that it agreed to a meeting with Mr Smith. The bank actually said to Mr Smith’s wife, “It is not a matter of if we will take your home, but when.”
Mr Smith and his family have gone through hell. Like many of the companies that have been discussed in the debate, they would have been a cornerstone of Britain’s economic recovery. Instead, trust, confidence and belief in the British banking system has been systemically destroyed.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue that has deeply affected so many small and medium-sized businesses throughout the United Kingdom. The Royal Bank of Scotland should be one of the jewels in the UK’s crown: a principled yet profitable business carrying the great name of Scotland and doing business in every corner of the globe. Perhaps it was something that we could be proud of before 2007, but actions of the bank that have been uncovered since then have lost it almost all its credibility.
The Global Restructuring Group is responsible for much of its now bruised brand image. It was responsible for stripping businesses which were deemed to be perfectly viable. Those are not my words, but the words of the Tomlinson report, which stated:
“GRG artificially distresses otherwise viable businesses. Through such actions, GRG placed businesses on a journey towards administration, receivership and liquidation.”
One of GRG’s tactics was to appoint its own valuers to appraise assets put forward by companies against loans, deliberately undervaluing the assets and then putting them into GRG even if those companies were not behind with their payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) described very well the challenges that businesses and individuals have faced in that regard. Anyone can see that that should be absent from business practices in the United Kingdom.
Of course, RBS denies that it made any money from such practices, but we must remember that the senior management of the bank created the circumstances in which it became so desperate to liquidise many of its investments. It must also be pointed out that the Financial Conduct Authority found that GRG’s actions failed to comply with the bank’s own standards. It is only right for the FCA to hold the bank to account and to fight on behalf of customers—business or otherwise.
Unfortunately, such practices are not confined to customers of Royal Bank of Scotland. As many Members may be aware, UK Acorn Finance Ltd is held responsible by many in the agricultural industry for forcing farmers into bankruptcy or eviction. One example is that of Kevin and Angela Holt who farmed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). They are, in their words, victims of a fraudulent loan scheme that led to the loss of their farm. I am sure that there are countless small businesses that see their circumstances reflected in today’s debate.
It is also important to remember the problems that financial difficulties can lead to. It not only leaves a hole in the bank balance, but leads to mental health problems and can cause irreparable damage to families, especially in small businesses. The businesses affected are not faceless corporations, but, in many instances, small family companies supporting local employment and the local economy. I am very grateful to the Government for what they have done in continuing to fight hard to strengthen the financial sector, but more needs to be done.
As I have said, RBS is no stranger to bad news. Bankers’ bonuses, branch closures and bail-outs highlight but a few cases. One needs only to ask some of my constituents for their thoughts on the recent announcements to understand the consequences of its actions on local people and the injustice that they feel. However, the acts of the Global Restructuring Group are perhaps its most intemperate over the past decade, since the beginning of the great recession. It is our duty in this House to stand up for those who have been crushed by the immoral acts of this corporation, which, as we all know, is now owned by the taxpayers of this country.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
In the brief time available, I will add my voice to that of those calling for a proper inquiry into the scandal and a proper tribunal system for dealing with SMEs that are in difficulty.
I wish briefly to cite the example of my constituent Anthony Molyneux, whose small business has been mishandled by RBS over the past several years. Equally—as we have heard, this is a much wider problem—I could cite the case of my constituent David Farnden, who has been treated appallingly by the Yorkshire Bank over a long period of time.
Mr Molyneux’s experience is one of the thousands of cases in which RBS has put its profits before small businesses that needed, expected and deserved its support to turn their businesses around. He estimates that at least £1.5 million of assets were sold for around £260,000 to make a quick buck for RBS. The problem started when he was alerted by one of his tenants that an auction sign had been placed outside one of his premises. The auctioneers confirmed that RBS had placed his premises up for auction to pay back some of the debt that it claimed he owed.
RBS did not follow the correct processes when it used the TR2 process in the sale of Mr Molyneux’s land. It did not communicate properly with him and did not give him adequate opportunity to clear his arrears. After a long dispute about the amount he owed, he got an agreement in writing, and then RBS came back demanding more money.
I do not have time to go into the long list of very serious concerns about the process and ethics of the sale, suffice it to say that Mr Molyneux took his case to the financial ombudsman, which upheld his complaint. It recognised wrongdoing on the part of RBS, but said that, in the absence of the loan agreement that RBS said could not be found, it would be for the courts to decide the legality of the bank’s actions. That left the onus on Mr Molyneux to undertake a very expensive and risky court process. Six years on, the issue has not been settled, and he has not had an adequate settlement for his dispute. Sadly, that case is typical of the kind of failings revealed in the FCA’s report on RBS.
It is clear from this debate that small businesses across the country have suffered as a result of a system that lacks adequate checks and balances. The incidents are not isolated, as we have heard. Sixteen thousand companies were handled by the GRG. Of those, only one in 10 ever returned to health and, at the same time, the GRG became one of the bank’s most profitable sectors. We have heard that there has been a systemic failure. The banks have failed to recognise and grasp the glaring conflicts of interests between their commercial aims and their obligations to businesses and all of us to help SMEs to turn around and make a profit.
It is clear from this debate that my constituent’s experience is one of many examples in which SMEs have been the victims of a banking sector that is focused solely on profit, not on supporting its customers or our wider economy. It is also clear that the financial ombudsman is unable effectively to provide for accountability in cases such as the ones that we have heard about today. It lacks the power or authority not only to prevent such examples of corporate greed, but to achieve justice for those affected. In the wake of the FCA report, which has exposed a widespread failure in the system, the Government must take action, so I strongly call for a Select Committee inquiry—a proper inquiry—and a proper process to bring RBS and the other banks to justice on behalf of my constituents and those of other Members.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
First, I must draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been in business for 25 years and still am today, and our business was once a customer of RBS. Thankfully, we did not suffer from any of the tragic circumstances that many Members have talked about today.
I thank my co-officer on the all-party group on fair business banking, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for clearly setting out the case for a tribunal, to which I need to add very little detail. I will, however, make some further points. There is not only a case for justice here, but an economic imperative. We know that the powerhouse behind our economy is SMEs. Some 99% of all businesses are SMEs. They employ 60% of our private sector workforce and create 51% of its turnover, yet they have suffered terribly from these colossal injustices. There is now a crisis of confidence between our businesses and our banks. The Treasury is doing great work in trying to find funds for new companies and scale-ups that cannot borrow, but what about those companies that will not borrow because they just do not have the confidence to do so? Many people in the Public Gallery can provide great evidence to show that, in their minds and the minds of many other business people, that is absolutely the case.
This is about not just RBS, but many other banks, such as HBOS and Lloyds. We are talking about tens of thousands of businesses, but that statistic masks individual tragic stories. These are people’s lives and their life’s work. My constituents John and Kerry Welsby had a good business. They were persuaded to take on a loan that the bank salesman did not understand, and that they could not understand, but in the pressure of business, sometimes people take on such loans. They signed up to the loan but, as interest rates fell, the cost went from £6,000 a month to £17,000 a month. That broke the business. The bank then decided that it would compensate them for the cost of the loan—a few hundred thousand pounds, which is an awful lot of money—but what about the cost of the business that was broken? That was their life’s work—tens of millions of pounds. It is an outrageous injustice.
The difficulty, as we all know, is not only that banks are too big to fail, but that they are too big and too wealthy to sue. No form of justice is available in this situation. I do not believe that the Financial Ombudsman Service could deliver the solutions we need. We need to look at other solutions to provide justice. Our all-party group is considering the idea of a tribunal and we need to ensure that we get that justice. In a tribunal, the plaintiff will not have to carry the costs of the defence if they lose, so it represents an accessible form of justice. We believe that that could be delivered through secondary legislation, but obviously we need to look into that.
The all-party group accepts that we need to do proper research. One thing we absolutely cannot countenance, and that even businesses that have been wronged in this process will not countenance, is to stem the flow of lending. We cannot afford to do that, so we must take the time to conduct research. We are prepared, as an all-party group, to do that. We have support from some surprising places—participants in the financial services industry. We just need time for the Treasury to work with us to ensure that we deliver the right solutions for justice and to benefit small businesses and the UK economy.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
For 10 years, I have been dealing with George Jones, a farmer in my constituency. George has been a victim of big banks, small banks, dodgy accountants, solicitors and valuers for the past 13 years. He has been let down by all the organisations that should have been there to help him, including various police forces, police and crime commissioners, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Serious Fraud Office.
My constituents and others from around the country are looking to us today, as parliamentarians, as their last hope of gaining justice. I hope that we do not let them down. The web of deceit between a whole range of organisations is highly complex, from the big banks—RBS and Lloyds—to accountants, solicitors and valuers. I hope to discuss the impact of this national scam as it pertains to my constituent George and his family. In doing so, I am heavily reliant on George and his friend, Martin Wickens, who is an expert in this area and has been working with him.
George Jones and his family were treated extremely poorly by Barclays. Within days of his father suffering a stroke, Barclays was round at his farm, stating that a new bank mandate was immediately required. Barclays leant heavily on my constituent, reorganising the finance not to the benefit of George or their mutual benefit, but to the benefit of the bank. It acted with indecent haste. Barclays also leant on him for insurance policies, saying that without insurance, the interest charges would be increased. Barclays effectively turned its back on my constituents.
Once Barclays had turned its back on George and his family, the family were forced to go elsewhere for finance. They turned to Peter Williams, a renowned agricultural solicitor who often featured in the agricultural press. Peter Williams, with his contacts in Burges Salmon Solicitors, UK Acorn and Commercial First, was able to get my constituents’ debt down by £100,000. The costs to George and his family were £130,000. They then proceeded to tie George and his family up in debts, loans and mortgages that they could not get out of. My constituent is now a pensioner, and he will likely die in harness. He is effectively a slave to these parasitic financial organisations—and he is just one of 46 cases.
As I mentioned, the organisations that should have been investigating this have let George down. His friend, Martin Wickens, has done an analysis of 20 of the cases, and the modus operandi of Burges Salmon, UK Acorn and Commercial First is the same as has been repeated around the Chamber today: undisclosed conflicts of interest; valuation rigging; the payment of substantial secret commissions of up to £92,000; mortgage churning; regulated mortgages advanced on unregulated loans; conspiracy to defraud and document forgery; false accounting; and breaches of the Law of Property Act 1925.
In conclusion, I shall refer to the answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled. George and other taxpayers have paid £134 billion to the banks since 2008. I hope the Treasury Committee will pursue this. I hope that we have an inquiry and that a tribunal is set up, and I hope that Avon and Somerset constabulary will now pursue Burges Salmon, Acorn Group and Commercial First.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this important debate. I wish to be associated with their remarks and with those of my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Little did I know, when I left school at 16 to join the Royal Bank of Scotland as a junior bank officer, that all these years later I would be standing in the House of Commons talking, I am afraid, in negative terms about the Royal Bank of Scotland, which, as one of my colleagues said, was one of Scotland’s finest institutions and now badly needs to be restored.
Little did I know, either, that I would end up speaking so often in this place about the Royal Bank of Scotland, most recently about the branch closures in my constituency. There is a theme here. The Royal Bank of Scotland is going to leave small businesses in Stirling, especially in Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Bannockburn, with no branch to interact with to transact their cash management. I think, as we look through the issues today, we will see a theme of casual disregard and contempt for small and medium businesses, and that, I am afraid, pervades RBS’s approach to business customers.
On the activities of the GRG, the FCA’s October 2017 report makes depressing reading. I lost count of the number of times the words “inadequate”, “inappropriate”, “systemic” and “failure” were linked to a wide range of activities. Many Members from all parties have examples of how these systemic failures have affected individuals. I am no different. However, I am mindful of ongoing investigations involving cases in my constituency and I have no wish to prejudice or jeopardise their progress by making reference to them. I shall simply say that, in the cases that have been brought to my attention, there remain many unanswered questions for the Royal Bank of Scotland to address and many injustices to be put right.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions that he was employed by that bank, of which he was once very proud. Could he make any comment on what has brought us to the position where he is now embarrassed, perhaps, about his previous employment?
Stephen Kerr
I am not sure I am embarrassed about my previous employment, but what has brought us to this situation is a culture—a culture that, I am afraid, is institutionalised and industry-wide. That culture is captured in the document in my hand, which, thanks to the offices of the Treasury Committee, is now publicly available. The document, entitled “Just Hit Budget!” contains many sentiments that betray the culture of the Royal Bank of Scotland of that era, but I sincerely hope not of this era, although I remain unconvinced.
Interestingly enough, the chief executive of RBS, in correspondence to my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee, in my eyes justifies the letter by saying that
“it was written in 2009 by a junior”
bank
“manager”.
Frankly, a junior bank manager would not have written that document without understanding that it conformed to the culture of the business that they were operating in. I am afraid that the chief executive is condemned by his own justification, which does not wash.
In the time that I have left, I will not try to rehash many of the things that have been said, but simply say this. There is a gap in funding support for small and medium-sized businesses in this country, and it is holding us back as an economy. These companies are the lifeblood—the engine room—of our economy, and it is not acceptable that they do not have recourse to an independent mechanism to which they can bring their complaints of unfair and unreasonable practices when dealing with our financial institutions.
Given the appalling conduct uncovered in many reports—not just the report that I referenced earlier—there is obviously a failure to comply with the voluntary code, however much the banking lobby may continue to stand by it. In fact, ironically, the stronger that lobby—funded, in part, by the inappropriate gains that have been made through the immoral practices in relation to small and medium-sized businesses—the stronger is the case for an independent body. They had their chance, in my eyes, and I am sure in others’ eyes, and have failed. It is time, and it is right, for this Parliament to take responsibility—to step in and to act to ensure that an independent body, as described by me and others, is created, and as quickly as possible, because enough is enough.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
As we have heard, this debate is about wider failures, which go beyond RBS GRG. I would like to highlight the extent of the problem by drawing on the experience of my constituent Mr Derek Carlyle, who is in the Gallery today. I pay tribute to the late Jimmy Hood, the former Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, who first raised this case in a Westminster Hall debate on 10 March 2010. The record of that will show a more thorough account of the case than I will be able to give today.
Almost eight years later, things have moved on significantly for Mr Carlyle, but the issues he faced and the considerable challenges he had to overcome remain today. What started as a good relationship with RBS took a turn for the worse in 2008, when a promise to provide development funding was withdrawn. Mr Carlyle went on to fight for 10 years in the face of relentless intimidation, bullying and underhand tactics by RBS. It sought to destroy Mr Carlyle, and it almost succeeded. It manipulated his personal bank accounts, seized his assets, forced his company into administration and set about preventing solicitors from acting on his behalf. His solicitor at the time, also a small business, found itself under siege, inundated with requests and bombarded with phone calls—so much so that it was unable carry out its usual functions and provide a service to its other clients. In the end, it felt that it had no option but to cease representing Mr Carlyle. Eventually, his case was taken by a firm of solicitors that was not specialised in litigation and first had to seek the permission of RBS before it could act.
Mr Carlyle had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to settle his case—the only person to do so—and it came at a huge financial and personal expense. He lost his business and his house; his private life was affected; he suffered damage to his reputation; and he was forced into bankruptcy. The great unfairness is that the bankruptcy restriction order against him is still in place today, meaning that he is unable to act as director of a company, unable to borrow more than £500, and even unable to become a Member of this House should he wish to turn his talents to the world of politics. How can it be fair for someone to fight for almost 10 years, be vindicated in the highest court of law, and then, at the end of it all, find themselves significantly disadvantaged in what they can and cannot do in their personal and professional life? The legislation that controls bankruptcy in Scotland is devolved. I am disappointed that the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy in the Scottish Parliament has declined to intervene to correct the unfairness that means that Mr Carlyle is still subject to the bankruptcy restriction order.
Most of us would not have the determination or strength of character that it took for Derek Carlyle to win his case. He was told on more than one occasion to give up. He says that he relied on others who put their neck on the line, and no small measure of luck. If this can happen with a bank that is over 70% owned by the taxpayer, it can happen with any bank. It shows that we have a completely dysfunctional system where the balance of power is heavily in favour of not just the banks, but professional advisers who are integral to the system, such as surveyors, insolvency practitioners and solicitors. Moreover, bad behaviour is rewarded because outcomes like Mr Carlyle’s are rare and almost impossible to pursue. It is in the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises and the banks to sort this problem now. It is not going away, and failing to tackle it will only push it further down the road. The last thing we need is another banking scandal.
It is not sustainable for banks to continue to act as judge and jury, and it should not take what Derek Carlyle had to go through to reach a fair outcome. I fully support the recommendation of the APPG on fair business banking. We need to bring complaints out into the open. We need an affordable, accessible dispute resolution process. It needs to be a completely independent system that sits outside the regulatory structure and has the knowledge and power to deal with the complex disputes that will be brought before it. The best way of achieving that is through a public tribunal system, and I hope that Members across the House will back those calling for that.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
This is clearly an important debate, as evidenced by the testimonies that many Members have from their constituencies about RBS GRG. But it goes far wider than that, because RBS was not alone in facing allegations of mis-selling, of treating companies badly at the height of the banking crisis and of poor redress since. I am sure that many Members will have had cases of Clydesdale’s tailored business loan mis-selling, where redress has not yet been made and constituents may have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods as a result. It is also the case—this adds to our frustrations and those of our constituents—that some products were regulated and others were not and that some customers were deemed to be “sophisticated investors” while others were not. In short, there was an opaque regulatory environment that may have been sufficient in the good times, but most certainly was not when the money ran out and the banks were at their most stressed.
All the banks came under scrutiny, but much of the focus, understandably, was on RBS because it had such a large market share; because, by some measures, it was the largest bank in the world; and, not least, because of the allegations surrounding the treatment of businesses after they entered the bank’s GRG. I will not describe the genesis of the products that people bought, as the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) did that well. I simply say that, when businesses wished to extract themselves, sometimes their only way of escape was to pay substantial sums, larger than any capital ever borrowed, but as they were distressed themselves as the economy downturned, that was not possible, and so, in the case of RBS, they went to GRG. One would have thought, as many have said, that this was to help businesses to recover, but few did. To be fair, some of those businesses are likely to have failed anyway, while others were potentially viable, and referral to GRG may have caused some difficulties. But the key point is that some definitely experienced actions that were likely to have resulted in material financial distress.
One of the many reasons this was able to happen is that in some cases commercial lending was not regulated. To be fair to RBS, it did work with the FCA and it has implemented the complaints review. It also trained the team under Sir William Blackburne, who was honest in saying that outcomes were not being delivered quickly. However, all that remedial work, some of which was very good, is undermined by the swirling belief that refuses to go away that businesses referred to GRG were cash-poor but asset-rich, and artificial default events were engineered. In short, the businesses were asset-stripped.
These allegations are made all the more persuasive by the fact that, as we now know, GRG had a commercial objective and was part of “project dash for cash”; and by what we have seen since the Treasury Committee published the “Just Hit Budget!” memo and the memo from 2008-09.
I fully support the motion. I want to end because time is short. The memo from RBS GRG said that a customer should transfer to GRG if a significant deterioration in any aspect of their activity had happened, where a breach of covenant was likely but had not happened, or where they may miss a contractual payment to anyone. So even businesses that stuck to the terms of the RBS agreement could be referred to GRG. That was completely wrong.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Much as I support calls for a tribunal system and an inquiry, the longer I listen to the debate, the more I believe that there has to be much greater involvement of the police in what are clearly criminal conspiracies—particularly, perhaps, in relation to agreements between valuers and the banks to drive down the values of properties. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is absolutely right that while we cannot forget the personal damage done to small business owners, this is an attack on the whole of the UK economy, which is underpinned by those small businesses. It should therefore be taken seriously in criminal terms at the national level.
My constituent Graham had his business destroyed by Clydesdale and Yorkshire bank, which unlawfully mis-sold tailored business loans to him and to other SME customers. The selling involved widespread and systematic unlawful conduct, including making deliberately false representations to coerce customers into taking on the obligations under tailored business loans. Customers were not told about any interest rate swaps associated with or embedded into their tailored business loans, nor were they given the bank’s standard terms and conditions before or at the time of entering into the TBL. There was no mention of potentially substantial early termination penalty charges—break costs—allegedly associated with such interest rate derivative products.
As a result of this mass mis-selling, customers of these banks have suffered significant financial losses. The hidden break cost liabilities asserted by the banks meant that it became virtually impossible for customers to pay off their TBL completely or to switch their borrowing to another bank, as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) said. SMEs were therefore locked-in victims, forced to continue paying interest rates as high as 6% or 7% on these loans when the base rate was reduced to 0.5%.
SMEs were subjected to various other forms of abuse, including the manipulation of property valuations mentioned previously, which resulted in alleged covenant breaches of the loan-to-value ratio on the property underpinning the loans, as well as the unlawful repossession of properties, the manipulation of overdraft facilities to exert additional pressure, the unfair imposition of inflated bank charges and the unlawful calling-in of personal guarantees. It is no wonder that so many small businesses, and the families underpinning them, have gone under in these intolerable circumstances.
From investigating Graham’s case and those of other constituents, I, like other hon. Members, am absolutely clear that the Financial Ombudsman Service is not fit for purpose, perhaps because it lacks the skills to understand these very complicated financial instruments, perhaps because it is under-resourced, or perhaps because it lacks the political will and is too close to the banks. It could also be—the Minister may want to consider this—that the legislative regime under which it operates is not sufficient and that it does not have sufficient scope.
I have one final point to make. This scandal has been compared to the PPI scandal, but I think it is in a league way beyond it. Adding extra money to somebody’s payment protection insurance and then skimming some off the top is one thing, but deliberately driving down, crashing and destroying somebody’s business, to which they and often their families have dedicated their lives, is in a league beyond anything we can comprehend. I return to the point I started with: this is criminality and it should be dealt with as such.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this debate and in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for it, especially after a debate on the subject was cancelled before Christmas. It is clear from the contributions today that we could easily have filled a whole six hours, there is so much going on. I think it started for all of us with individual constituents coming to us, and we began to realise that this issue extends across the entire country.
One of the key questions, or perhaps the key question, that remains to be answered is whether the behaviour of the RBS GRG was, to paraphrase the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—I hope this is not unparliamentary language—a cock-up or a conspiracy. Either way, the decision to seize and strip the assets of thousands of small businesses across the country has, as we have heard, caused untold misery to the owners and employees of these businesses and their families, and it seems to have caused genuine damage to the economy as a whole.
The fact that we are having this debate is a tribute to the campaigners, the various organisations that have raised awareness with their MPs and the work of the all-party group on fair business banking. Those campaigners include one of my constituents, Mr Neil Mitchell, who I know is watching this debate very closely. We have heard many powerful testimonies from constituents, and I want to share some of my constituent’s experiences.
Neil was the chief executive of Torex Retail. He alleges that the RBS Global Restructuring Group “conspired by unlawful means” with Cerberus, a private equity fund in America, to engineer the sale of Torex to Cerberus for a cut-price £204 million in June 2007, which is more than 10 years ago. He alleges “systematic institutionalised fraud” by the RBS GRG in relation to its dealings, which have cost him his business, and time and money afterwards in his campaign for justice. Although I, like many Members, have been able to table parliamentary questions, speak in debates and write to and meet Ministers, Mr Mitchell has faced the burden of this case. While he is rightly seeking restitution of his own losses, his greater motivation has been to support other affected businesses in seeking justice and the establishment of a system that will mean that this kind of scandal can never happen again.
All Mr Mitchell really wanted was a meeting with the chief exec of RBS, and I wonder how much grief might have been avoided if RBS had been willing to meet constituents and business owners much earlier in the game. Instead, Mr Mitchell commenced private legal action against RBS, Cerberus and KPMG; he reported his case to the Serious Fraud Office and the FCA, launched a civil legal action against the companies involved and financed a private criminal investigation with a view towards a private criminal prosecution. He has also played a part in the “ripped off” campaign. I pay tribute to his dogged determination and that of many other campaigners.
There are some key questions that the Government need to answer and that we perhaps all need to reflect on. First and most important, in whose interests were the decisions of the RBS GRG to force these businesses into default? Who has the beneficial interest in businesses that were secured borrowers being forced into default? Whether for an individual or a business, what is the primary objective of engineering the deliberate default and stripping of assets of businesses that potentially have long-term viability? Many of these businesses were stripped of fixed assets that realised capital for a state-owned bank, and individuals were forced out to the labour market, with all the cost to the state and loss to the economy that unemployment brings.
I thoroughly agree with all the calls for a dispute resolution mechanism and, indeed, for a public inquiry into the actions of GRG. Every victim of mis-selling should be given fair and equal opportunity to receive justice. Banks have to fulfil their duty to have the public interest at their heart, and that has to be put at the heart of banking culture in the United Kingdom.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing the debate with the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and on his excellent opening speech. He set a high bar, and his speech has been consistently matched by speaker after speaker in this debate.
I wish to raise the case of my constituent Ms Julia Davey, who ran two successful businesses, Angelic Interiors Ltd and Angel Group Ltd. I wish to place on the record my thanks to her barrister, Mr Simon Reevell, who represented Dewsbury in this House from 2010 to 2015, for his extensive briefing and assistance. In short, as at 30 April 2008, Angelic Interiors had fixed assets of over £30 million, with shareholder funds of £6 million; it was placed into administration in July 2016. At the same time, Angel Group had fixed assets of over £100 million, with shareholder funds of over £60 million; four years later it, too, would be placed into administration and then liquidated in 2015. Ms Davey has, by her calculations, personally lost over £6 million.
From the House of Commons Library briefing, it is clear that the focus of the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland was in many cases to liquidate companies, rather than to support them. The main charge is that it promoted the realisation of assets over other outcomes and that there was no attempt to rescue them.
Mr Reevell’s brief says that the Tomlinson report makes it clear that RBS used its Global Restructuring Group artificially to distress the businesses of a significant number of its customers. Accounts were moved to GRG and customers were then charged exorbitant fees and/or forced to relinquish control of their businesses. The method used within Lloyds Baking Group’s London and south east impaired assets department was to compel customers to accept the involvement of what they were given to understand was a turnaround company. Very high fees were levied for this service and the “turnaround” company gradually gained control of the business and misappropriated its income before appropriating and/or disposing of its assets.
Lloyds’ business support unit based in the City used a similar method in respect of Ms Davey, and her business. In 2009, her account was transferred from Leeds to the BSU without her knowledge. In September 2011, Ms Davey was told that she must retain the services of a third-party turnaround company, Baronsmead Consultancy. She was obliged to pay the fees charged by that firm, which were in excess of £644,000 for some 10 months’ work. The total taken from Ms Davey in costs and fees during the period that her business was in the BSU was in excess of £6 million. She believed that the turnaround company was working for her and was, in conjunction with the bank, aiming to return her business to mainstream banking. She would still believe that to have been the aim, but for information provided to her by a whistleblower inside the turnaround company, who was appalled that while the so-called turnaround company was purporting to assist Ms Davey, it was actually colluding with the bank to put the business into administration. At a time when the BSU had already decided to close down Ms Davey’s business, it was taking millions of pounds from her on the pretence that the business was to be turned around. This was not only deceitful, but wrong, and I would have thought criminal.
Part of the motion says that this House
“believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds”.
The losses include those of my constituent Ms Davey. She is still waiting for justice, and I look forward to the Minister telling me how she will secure it.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and members of the all-party group, for securing this vital debate.
Small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of our economy as well as our communities. The banking industry exists to support them, but the widespread malpractice that plagues the sector has shown that the banks fail those responsibilities catastrophically. Members have given details of the shameful behaviour of RBS, but as has been shown today, such behaviour is not exclusive to that bank.
One constituent of mine—a customer of Lloyds— has lost millions as a consequence of such immoral practices. Mr Alun Richards, who is in the public Gallery today, was once the owner of an extensive farming and property business in west Wales. He became a customer of Lloyds which, after a period of time, decided suddenly and without warning to transfer his account to the Lloyds recoveries unit in Bristol. After Lloyds made that decision, Mr Richards was soon left with nothing. He lost millions of pounds, and the bank took away all his assets, including his home. The manner in which it did so was inappropriate, irresponsible, and without any real explanation. There was little to no support available to Mr Richards, or any attempt to save the business. The solicitors, TLT of Bristol, acting on behalf of Lloyds bank, did so with intimidation and disrespect. Indeed, one Lloyds representative who met Mr Richards was not a Lloyds employee but on the payroll of chartered surveyors Alder King.
In the years that followed, Mr Richards raised complaints with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors about the behaviour of Alder King, as well as with the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding the behaviour of the solicitors involved. Each of the two regulatory bodies did little to nothing to investigate the situation. I have received many letters from both organisations, and to say that their responses have been half-baked would be an understatement.
Considerable attention has been paid to this issue in the House, including several Westminster Hall debates, and the beginnings of a sitting by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, during which the share price of Lloyds Banking Group dropped. Perhaps this debate will make Lloyds listen and realise that Members of Parliament are going nowhere, and neither are our constituents.
Such mistreatment of SMEs by the banking sector is a stain on the industry, and it is immoral, unjustified, and—unfortunately—widespread. I hope that after this debate, the Government will give due consideration to the atrocious behaviour by Lloyds, Alder King, and regulatory bodies such as RICS and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Such regulatory bodies are there to deal with complaints, but they have utterly failed.
I am grateful that the Chair of the Treasury Committee spoke in this debate and said that she is in favour of some additional work on this issue. As I have told her, I am now composing a cross-party letter that will go to that Committee and call for a fuller and wider inquiry into the malpractices of the banking sector. This issue goes far beyond just one or two banks, and the system must be better regulated to prevent such behaviour. I hope that the Government will use the examples presented in this debate as evidence to do that, and I fully support the motion and the need for a tribunal service.
In the 30 seconds remaining to me I will also try to speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). He is unable to attend this debate as he has a diary clash, and he apologises that he cannot be here. His constituents have suffered losses as the results of the practices of Lloyds bank and the receiver Alder King. He points out that the experiences of his constituents are similar to those related by hon. Members in previous debates, and they involve conflicts of interests, actions by banks that damage rather than support local businesses and an unhealthy culture that leads to unethical banking practices that have bankrupted many people who trusted their bank to act in their interest.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this important debate.
I was shocked when, soon after being elected, I was approached by constituents who had been affected by major banks employing such unfair and—one can say this—dishonest practices when dealing with their businesses. Although this debate is nominally about the practices of RBS, all the evidence I have seen shows that it is a widespread problem and that financial institutions are preying on businesses that have been given little, if any, protection from regulators or the criminal justice system. The financial institutions perpetrating these practices are in such a position of power that the Government must look at rebalancing the situation.
For many people, running their own business is not like having a job; it becomes more like part of the family. These are businesses that people have inherited from their families or built up from a small idea, and for many business owners they mean everything. Like others who have spoken in this debate, I too have constituents who have had their businesses destroyed after a lifetime of work. They have lost their homes and had their families torn apart; they have lost their health and their future, and they have been living a hand-to-mouth existence, just so that some banker can receive an obscene bonus.
My constituent Peter Way—he is here today in the public Gallery—had his prestigious business, which employed more than 500 people, taken away by Bibby Financial Services, which is no stranger to this type of skulduggery. Bibby put my constituent under such undue financial pressure with no warning that it destroyed not only his business, but nearly his life. Such things have taken place right across the asset financial sector, and on an industrial scale, by the majority—if not all—the asset finance companies.
Another constituent, Bryan Evans, had a business called EP Leisure, and he has also been the victim of unscrupulous practices by financial institutions. Barclays bank employed a firm of valuers called Lambert Smith Hampton. It vastly devalued the land owned by EP Leisure, which put undue pressure on Mr Evans’s business. Following reports back to Barclays, the bank decided that EP Leisure was no longer a profitable investment, and the very same company that devalued the land was called in to become receivers for EP Leisure’s land. That matter is the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and despite continued inquiries from Mr Evans, my predecessor, and even his predecessor, we are no further forward in getting justice for Mr Evans.
Why are we not getting that justice? We are not getting it because business banking remains an unregulated activity. Financial service providers can wait out many people who will eventually run out of money, time, or indeed sanity. There is no equity in legal representation—big banks have big expensive lawyers on their side, and there is literally nowhere for people to turn when such things happen to them.
What can the Government do to stop this scandal from hitting our SMEs? We need the rapid establishment of an independent, external service, such as the financial services tribunal system suggested in the motion. Today we have heard one shining example of a committed police force that acted against HBOS and secured convictions for fraud, but we need that to be the norm and not a one-off. SMEs provide the backbone of our economy. My constituents, and everyone who sets up a business and puts hours of dedication and hard work into it, deserves protection from underhand practices. I call on the Government to act to bring such practices to an end.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
If we did not think before that there was a systemic crisis in banking, this debate has confirmed that there is.
The actions of the Global Restructuring Group have impacted on businesses and jobs in my constituency. I do not want to speak today about RBS’s past mistreatment of its customers; instead I will concentrate on the way that the bank continues, today, to behave towards the businesses it has damaged. Some businesses seeking redress from RBS may be able to access the compensation scheme that the bank announced last year, but for those unable to pursue that route, the only course is legal action.
It is pretty shocking to watch the extraordinarily aggressive approach that the bank is taking to litigation. Costs are escalated to such an extent that all but the richest litigants are unable to pursue their cases. Satellite litigation is launched against claimants’ funders, lawyers, and other third parties. Perhaps most shamefully of all, the bank has repeatedly been criticised for failing to provide full and frank disclosure in the courts during its defence of those claims. In 2016, in a well-publicised and ongoing dispute between Property Alliance Group, which is based in my constituency, and RBS, the bank was expressly criticised by Mrs Justice Asplin in the High Court for taking what she described as a “cavalier” attitude to disclosure. Last week, with the case now heading to the Court of Appeal, the court was again forced to order RBS to hand over more documents—clearly the bank has paid no heed to demands for disclosure. That is not an isolated case. LEXLAW has detailed other cases where RBS failed to provide full disclosure to the court and the claimant. That is clearly not how litigation should be conducted.
Equally, there are concerns about how the bank is operating the compensation scheme announced last year. At £400 million, the fund sounds generous, but in reality it does not come close to recognising the true extent of the harm caused to businesses or the benefit that RBS has enjoyed from GRG’s activities. The fund addresses only a limited range of GRG’s misconduct and is available only to a fraction of the businesses that suffered. Research carried out by Property Alliance Group suggests that the real size of RBS’s compensation scheme should be at least 10 times its current scale—closer to £4 billion than £400 million—and that is because one of GRG’s most heavily criticised practices was the process by which the bank bullied customers into giving away equity stakes in their business in return for its continued support. These so-called upside instruments have been criticised widely but were profitable, and if we look at the balance sheets and reports and accounts of the RBS subsidiary that managed the assets, SIG Holdings, we can see that the bank profited to the tune of £400 million from these practices. As will be immediately apparent, that £400 million, from just one area of the bank’s misconduct, equates to RBS’s entire compensation scheme, which covers all areas of misconduct.
What is more, the accounts of SIG Holdings for the year ending 2016 show that the bank set aside just over £40 million in practice for the costs associated with the complaints process and the automatic refund of complex fees to customers. Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, told the Treasury Committee last October that RBS had paid or made offers of about £115 million, which is well short of the £400 million fund, and neither is it clear that the money has been either paid or accepted by claimants.
In conclusion, this debate does not just concern RBS’s past actions; it continues to do all it can to avoid its responsibilities. Far from rebuilding trust, the bank continues to treat its customers with disdain, both in the courts and in the operation of its compensation scheme.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this debate on a subject that has cost so many of our constituents so much. Public dissatisfaction with the conduct and running of our banking sector has been one of the dominant themes of the past decade, much of it prompted by the behaviour and management of RBS, which, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) pointed out, is in the news again this week with regard to bank closures.
We should remember, however, that there is a wider issue. What we have is the banking system’s systemic failure to protect its own customers. We must not underestimate the impact on those customers, each of whom is an individual—a business person—with a family. Owners of SMEs have found that they are the victims of this systemic failure that has cost them their businesses and, in some cases, their homes. I have a constituent who has been pursuing a case for 10 years. Following a review by the FCA, he been awarded compensation, but he does not believe that that compensation takes into account the consequential losses of his business and property, and the costs of having to arrange another loan. He estimates that he is now more than £1 million worse off than before he went into business with this national bank.
In the decade in which my constituent has pursued his complaint, I am his third Member of Parliament to whom he has brought his case. We are still having to argue that the system is wrong and needs to be changed. His is typical of businesses caught in a trap without fair protection in law. For businesses that want to challenge a bank in court, the process is slow and expensive, and if they lose, they will have legal costs to pay on top of what the original problem might already have cost them. Where is the incentive for the banks to avoid malpractice and obey the law if they know they cannot be challenged because their victims cannot afford to take them to court?
That is exactly that situation that many of our constituents have found themselves in. They want their day in court, or at least the opportunity for a legal process to decide what is fair. Yes, we have the financial ombudsman, but that can only arrange fair and reasonable settlements as it sees it. What about those who feel—rightly or wrongly—that they deserve better than that fair and reasonable settlement and that the ombudsman’s view falls short? That is why I believe we need a tribunal system that will allow the many SMEs that have been mis-sold to and mistreated—some would say cheated—by the big banks the chance to feel that the system can protect them. The process would be cheaper and less formal, and complainants would not need a lawyer. We know that such a process works in other places.
The system has failed. It allowed malpractice that cost hard-working individuals their businesses and homes. This is an injustice that we have an opportunity—indeed, a duty—to address, and I ask the House to support the motion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for securing this debate and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. We have heard significant contributions and good personal stories although, unfortunately, some were very hard to listen to.
In Northern Ireland, SMEs account for 75% of employment, 75% of turnover and 81% of gross value added. The private sector has clearly taken us away from the past, and it is important that we do so. I have written to the FCA, and Andrew Bailey in particular, outlining the case for UK SMEs. I am reminded that the former Chair of the Treasury Committee referred to HBOS as the second-worst failure in British banking history—it was beaten, of course, by RBS. In our correspondence, Mr Bailey made a couple of relevant points. The only planned action to which his reply referred was that the FCA expected to issue a consultation on the expanded role of the Financial Ombudsman Service in undertaking more disputed cases with banks. As of last Friday, however, nothing had happened, so everyone is dragging their heels, and the FCA board seems to have no suggestions or comments to make. I respectfully ask the Minister and Her Majesty’s Government what action they would consider taking to further support SMEs.
I am aware from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that the all-party group on fair business banking proposes an independent tribunal system, which is good news. I am also aware that a freedom of information request has shown that since July 2015, the FOS has considered some 633 mis- selling complaints from micro-enterprises regarding fixed-rate commercial loans and mortgages. Some 21 were upheld with awards of greater than £75,000, and some recommendations were for as much as £150,000, but are the successful complainant businesses actually receiving from the bank the money recommended above the current statutory award? I can say now that some of my constituents have not. It is absolutely disgraceful that while their complaints have been upheld, the moneys are still lingering somewhere other than where they should be—with the complainants.
In the short time I have, I want to illustrate my point with the case of a large family dairy farm in Northern Ireland. It took out a £1 million loan with Danske Bank on the day of the highest LIBOR rate, on 1 October 2008, and since the day of £1 million loan drawdown on 22 January 2009, the farm has paid almost £500,000 in capital and—wait till you hear this one—£535,000 in interest, including another £62,000 because it moved to another bank. That bank has really screwed them, if I can use that word. I do not know if it is unparliamentary language and I apologise if it is, but that is how I feel. The Democratic Unionist party is watching how the FOS process handles this mis-selling case.
There are lots of other cases as well. Another bank that has treated small businesses in Strangford with disdain is the Ulster Bank. It has “restructured” its loans—that is its way of describing what appear to be deliberate destabilising assaults on small businesses. How do we quantify compensation for lost opportunities? The fact is we cannot. Small businesses have gone under, drowning as they watch the Government bailing out bankers. I call for the return of the old-fashioned code of truth, honesty, fairness, common decency, integrity and transparency throughout the whole banking industry. I call for the return of the bank manager who actually knows people, rather than glancing at an online profile. It is time that we did our best for our people.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for securing it.
This afternoon, we have heard about horrendous and nightmare cases, and I do not intend to add to those, because every Member of the House will have had through their constituency doors businesses and individuals who have suffered at the hands of the banks. We have also heard this afternoon that this is about not just one bank but many banks—it may, indeed, be every bank. To pick up on a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South, this is about conduct. It is about the deliberate choices the banks have made to facilitate profit for some.
When constituents and businesses come through our doors, they are coming to their MP as a last resort. I ask how many individuals and businesses gave up along the way, when it became just too hard to pursue what really was a battle against a giant. I raise that question because the banks’ conduct is one of the indications our communities and constituents take on board as they judge our banks and our banking system. The conduct we have heard about this afternoon—it has been around too long—is severely damaging the fundamental reputation of our banking system.
I had the honour of leading a Westminster Hall debate on 11 January during which we looked at banks’ responsibility towards communities. Today’s debate, which has explored the conduct of the banks, has shown how society’s trust in our banks is very much at a crossroads. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s views about how we can start to rebuild that trust in a fundamental part of business. We need the banks, but we must remember, and the banks must remember, that they need our communities as well.
We are looking for answers about transparency and about honesty. I want an answer on banks’ willingness to see imaginative answers to the problems they are confronted with, and I echo the call for a tribunal system. I would also raise the question of fair funding. As the economy becomes more complex, and as our communities and SMEs start to lose confidence in banks, or that confidence is at a crossroads, they are starting to look to other areas for funding. That is another major issue coming this way. I call on the Minister to seriously consider facilitating roundtable discussions on the question of banks’ responsibility to communities, our SMEs and those people who have supported the banks for so long.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I also commend the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for bringing this important debate here today. He started by talking about people’s incredulity that any bank could act in this way, and we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of this House about how these things have impacted on people. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, families have suffered. That is the background to this; it is not just businesses that have suffered. People have lost businesses, lost incomes and lost homes. We have seen the break-up of marriages and mental health impacts. Grimly, as we heard from the Treasury Committee memo, the view was that customers could just hang themselves, and there is testimony of people attempting suicide. It is shocking stuff.
Some of those affected feel responsible for losing their family businesses and feel deep shame at that happening. These things have devastated people, many of whom, as we have heard today, had good businesses that were ready to contribute to the economy and to aid productivity. Earlier, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) described GRG as death row, and it was for some.
When people tried to fight these injustices, they would face enormous financial costs. I understand that it cost £10,000 just to raise an action, which was beyond the capability of many people in those circumstances. Businesses with as few as 10 employees have been affected. This issue has had an enormously wide reach. If people could look to take forward legal action, they would find that the banks had sewn up all the solicitors in the area, making it impossible to get the correct level of representation.
As we have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber—and the SNP feels just as strongly about this—we need to see justice for people. Those on the Government Front Bench should have heard loud and clear today the strength of feeling from all parts of this Chamber and beyond. People will be shocked and disappointed that these things have been allowed to happen. It is unacceptable that banks have devastated firms, spreading misery by making people bankrupt and homeless.
The FCA’s final summary of the Promontory report exposes a set of serious failures by RBS to protect companies it should have been serving. As the evidence mounts, so too does the responsibility to act.
Drew Hendry
I am glad to see the Minister nodding and that he seems to be willing to take this forward. I hope that substantial action is taken.
We in the SNP believe that the current system of dealings with the regulator and the litigation process on mis-selling is inadequate. It must be a priority for the Government to ensure that every victim of mis-selling is given fair and equal access, so that they can see justice done. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned, an independent body is required. We call on the Minister to commit to and create a permanent commercial financial dispute resolution platform to serve the victims of mis-selling. He must pick up where the FCA has failed and produce a comprehensive review of banking culture to avoid a repeat of these things.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, when all banks were required to rebuild their capital, it was alleged that the main focus of the Global Restructuring Group was to liquidate, rather than support, businesses through further lending. The main charge against GRG is that it prioritised the realisation of assets over other, more business customer-supportive actions. Recently, we have also heard accusations of the mis-selling of rate swaps, and GRG is not alone in drawing criticism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned, SMEs have complained about tailored business loans sold by the Clydesdale Bank.
The Tomlinson report was damning of GRG. Much of the evidence pointed to businesses that were otherwise perfectly viable in the medium to long term, as we have heard in much of the testimony today, being moved into the RBS turnaround division—the GRG—and being trapped there, with no escape. Businesses were sunk by the bank, with the bank taking out all it could, beyond what was reasonable, and to such an extent that it directly contributed to the businesses’ financial deterioration and, in some cases, collapse. Technical breaches were used as excuses. There was evidence in some instances of covenants being used to put businesses in default and to transfer them out of local management.
Time does not allow me to go further into some of the details of the inequities that have been visited on people who have suffered at the hands of GRG and as a result of the unfair business banking practices we have heard about today. The Government must ensure that there is a firm mechanism that is fair for people, so that they can get justice in this case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will tell us at the end of this debate.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I hope the Government will listen to the overwhelming case that has been well made on both sides of the House—including by speaker after speaker on the Government Back Benches—for action on behalf of small businesses in our constituencies.
We started with a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and I commend him and the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance for bringing this issue forward. I also thank all Members who have taken part in the debate and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield).
When Carillion went bust at the start of the week, it struck me that there were similarities with the way that RBS treated its small business customers. In both cases, smaller businesses—Carillion’s suppliers and RBS customers—have been imperilled by the actions of much larger players. I know of at least one business that, having been put into GRG, is still in the successor division, years later, and as of this week is owed tens of thousands by Carillion that it is never going to receive. It is not good enough. The mistreatment of smaller firms must stop.
The news that banks are to provide additional support for Carillion’s suppliers is of course welcome, but this must not be just a short-term, headline-grabbing announcement. It must mean longer-term support, of the sort that was sorely lacking in RBS GRG and of the kind that was put in place by the Labour Government to support suppliers with the creation of the taskforce following the collapse of Rover in 2005. That is a good example for Ministers to follow.
What happened at RBS GRG was nothing short of a scandal and a disaster for the victims. Businesses were ruined, families were torn apart and people took their own lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central reminded us of the criminal convictions at Lloyds HBOS. There are many—some mentioned it today—who believe criminal investigations to be the appropriate way forward at RBS GRG. Justice is a vital step in the long process of rebuilding trust in business lending, which in 2016 was still so low that only 9% of smaller firms approached their bank to borrow money—and they did not all borrow. It is crucial to the success of our economy that there is a healthy relationship between the banks and smaller firms. We need our smaller firms to play their full part in contributing to the prosperity of this country. Relationships of trust are crucial.
The next Labour Government will introduce a network of regional development banks to support smaller firms, but those firms also need the help of the traditional banking sector and they need it now. Let us remember that, according to the Promontory report, 83% of businesses that were put into GRG were the subject of inappropriate treatment. Two thirds of businesses were viable, yet depending on which figures we look at, only 5% or 10% survived the process. The figure for inappropriate treatment of those who were potentially viable is higher, at 92%.
According to the then head of global markets, RBS decided to exit non-core markets. In practice, that meant getting businesses off its books as fast as possible, not by telling its business customers so that they could move to a new bank, but by putting them into intensive care—or rather, a slaughterhouse or mortuary, or on death row, to borrow the phrases used by my hon. Friends—charging exorbitant fees, using their own valuations and using interest rate-hedging products. Then there was the freezing of personal bank accounts, something that happened to my constituent John Pile. Mr Pile had never previously missed a mortgage payment on his commercial properties, yet the result for him and his family was the bank claiming that he had defaulted, despite having substantial sums of money in his personal account, which was frozen. He could have used that money, but was prevented from doing so by the same bank.
Customers who were making decent profits, whose rental incomes were well in excess of their interest payments, were put into GRG on the spurious grounds that their loan-to-values had suddenly dropped, on the basis of revaluations carried out by the bank’s own valuers. Then there was the overnight demand of repayment of overdrafts that were a key part of the day-to-day operations of many businesses. This was not proper turnaround practice—it was not turnaround practice at all for the customers. It was more like the turnaround of the bank at the expense of its customers. Perhaps the name, Global Restructuring Group, was a clue. It was a division responsible for the restructuring of the bank, not the small businesses that banked there.
Which brings me to the call for a full independent inquiry. Promontory carried out part one of its investigation for the Financial Conduct Authority. RBS does not want the report published, although much of it is now in the public domain, but nor does RBS want Promontory to carry out part two. Instead of sticking to its guns, the FCA has complied with the demands of the bank that it is supposed to regulate and gone for the in-house option. The suspicion will remain that such an approach means a lack of independence on RBS by its regulator. We know that the FCA is afraid of legal action if it publishes part one of the Promontory report because it told the Treasury Committee that, but it will simply not help to rebuild trust if the regulator is in fear of a bank and feels restricted in its ability to provide full oversight.
There are still many questions to be answered. Why were viable business customers put into GRG? At Ulster Bank, a substantial part of its business was deemed non-core and its customers were nearly all put into GRG. Meanwhile, there are disturbing parallels at other banks, affecting Dunbar Bank business customers and Acorn Finance, and we also heard about Bibby. They all tell a similar story to the RBS GRG story. Why did RBS not tell its customers when they were no longer core business and give them the chance to move to other banks? Who in management knew? Where was the oversight in the Treasury? Promontory says that management knew, so when will those responsible be held accountable? Why did GRG not follow turnaround procedures? This all needs to be in the public domain and properly acknowledged.
Until those questions are answered and those responsible held accountable, the victims will be denied justice, we will remain at 9% of smaller businesses asking their banks about borrowing money, and investment, productivity and prosperity will all be undermined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South says in the motion, the call, which has been well evidenced today, is for a robust system of dispute resolution. It is needed to overcome the imbalance of power in the relationship between smaller firms and their banks. That is also why the call for an inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them is the right call. And yes, it should look at all banks, not just RBS. No one else can intervene and ensure fair treatment. The regulator has had to restrict its activities under RBS pressure. Unless and until the Government intervene, this injustice and the long-term economic effects will continue to hold back a crucial part of our economy.
The issue of how RBS GRG treated its smaller business customers will not go away. The victims will not go away. Those of us across the House who want to see justice will not go away. The Government must now ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a privilege to stand at the Dispatch Box in my new role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I think we all feel the privilege of being Members of this House, but listening to today’s debate I also feel a great responsibility—to respond fully to the many serious examples that have been given of how the banking sector, and this group in particular, has failed so many of our constituents. I want to make it clear that in doing this job and in addressing the issues that have been raised today, I will stop at nothing in making improvements.
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for initiating the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work in the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking.
What we all care about—it has been made very clear in today’s debate—is that businesses form the lifeblood of our economy and they need a reliable mechanism to deal with disputes with banks. I am vividly aware of that, because I grew up not in a bank but in a small business. I know the risks, the anxieties, the sleepless nights, the pressures on family life and the lack of assurance over salary, so I understand that the experiences of small businesses and their relationships with banks really matter. The Government have always maintained a commitment to support and engage with businesses both small and large, and that commitment will continue unfettered.
The Government recognise that access to finance, which is the crux of the debate, is necessary for businesses to grow organically. We have a strong record of supporting businesses large and small, for instance, through measures in the Budget. The competitive tax regime—corporation tax was cut from 28% to 19%, the lowest rate in the G20—is a significant part of that, but what is really important is that businesses have access to money at a reasonable cost, with reasonable assurances on the terms of securing those funds.
A fantastic range of evidence has been presented to us today. We heard about Mr Smith’s engineering business in Bridgend and Mr Topping’s business in Hazel Grove. We heard vivid personal testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack). My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton gave the striking example of a monthly interest rate payment that rose, almost inexplicably, from £6,000 to £17,000 a month, leading to catastrophic losses. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) gave examples that went back eight years. There were further examples from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who spoke about Mr Mitchell, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who mentioned Mr Richards. In those cases, tortuous processes were necessary to secure redress or a meaningful dialogue leading to an outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) has told me about the Sayers family, who have also suffered. We heard further powerful testimony from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who used uncharacteristically strong language—legitimately so.
I too have been contacted by constituents and I have been saddened to hear the stories of many former RBS customers. The Financial Conduct Authority is reviewing the situation; it has said that it is considering the matters arising from the report it commissioned and considering whether there is any basis for further action within its powers. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this precise time, but I will say that although, on day seven of my job, I have not yet met the head of the FCA, this will be the first topic that I will be raising with him.
Bob Stewart
First, I congratulate the Prime Minister on having the extremely good sense to appoint such a wonderful new Minister—a great friend, and someone who is really going to sort this problem out. May I ask on behalf of everyone present for the Government to be onside to ensure that the people who have lost so much are recompensed properly? We are not talking just about the future; we are taking about dealing with the past.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. Of course we need to reach a stage where we have some answers. We need to know what went wrong, and we need to secure an outcome that is acceptable to our constituents.
It is important to recognise the fundamental need for financial providers to act in accordance with the rules of the FCA and the spirit of its principles. When they do not act in accordance with those principles, we need to have confidence in the mechanisms that exist to resolve disputes.
Norman Lamb
The Minister has not yet mentioned the role of whistleblowers. Does he agree that they are vital to maintaining the integrity of the financial system, that they need proper protection—an office of the whistleblower—and that they should be rewarded for being brave enough to reveal wrongdoing?
John Glen
I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and he is absolutely right. We need a change to the culture to enable wrongdoing to be exposed and dealt with, and I will look very carefully at this matter and the principles in his suggestions.
I am very aware of the allegations and the powerful testimony made against RB. I have taken on board the discussions we have had today, and later I will refer to some of the other substantive points raised across the House, but I want to be clear with Members: I saw the front page of City A.M. today, whose headline is “Go Hang”, and I do not condone the language in the GRG letter that RBS itself chose to release yesterday. I assure the House that the Government take these issues and any allegations of malpractice very seriously.
Nicky Morgan
Just for the record, will the Minister be very clear that RBS did not choose to release the letter; it was asked to do so, and like most other information, it has had to be dragged out of it by successive letters and attempts by Members of this House?
John Glen
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her intervention and acknowledge the work she is doing on the Select Committee, and it would be much more helpful to this process if RBS were more co-operative with the Committee and the legitimate process of scrutiny that she and her Committee members are seeking to undertake.
Not only do the Government take these matters seriously, but the FCA is well aware of them and continues to address this issue. As I said, it will be the first thing I raise when I meet Andrew Bailey very shortly. In October, the FCA released a detailed summary of its skilled persons report, which examined RBS’s treatment of SMEs in financial difficulty. The FCA is now investigating the matters arising from the report.
I am aware of the frustration over the time the process is taking. The outcome of this investigation and the action the FCA proposes to take is critical to small businesses across this country, but I remind Members that the FCA is an independent body. That is vital to its role, credibility, authority and value to consumers, and they would be undermined if it were possible for the Government to intervene in day-to-day decision making. We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.
It would not be productive for me to address from the Dispatch Box every specific case and allegation, and I want now to turn to the wider issue of SMEs and how disputes are resolved between them and their banks.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is making a thoughtful speech. Can he assure the House that the FCA will not be a toothless bulldog and that it will actually have some bite?
John Glen
I think the FCA understands, in the light of today’s debate, where the pressure is leading to and what action we will need to take if its response is not effective.
The key issue for the debate today, which I discussed with all-party group members yesterday afternoon, is that we must remember that there are already multiple avenues for resolution. I understand the frustrations Members have expressed about their effectiveness, but our smallest businesses have redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service for quick and informal resolution of disputes, the FCA has the power to take action to address issues that require resolution, and there is also the usual legal recourse available for businesses.
John Glen
No, I am going to make some more progress, but I might give way later.
The motion calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions, reflecting the frustration addressed by Members across the House today in respect of the experience of their constituents. A number of contributions have also focused on the proposed new tribunal system to deal with financial disputes between banks and SMEs.
As the industry, the FCA and the Treasury progress discussions on this issue, all avenues will be considered. The FCA is undertaking a review, and it launched a discussion paper on SMEs in November 2015. I feel that that is a very long time ago, so I am reassured to be able to report to the House that it will be making a statement on Monday 22 January on its 2015 SME paper and on its consultation on widening SME eligibility for the Financial Ombudsman Service. I shall look carefully at what it comes up with. The FCA has promised to consult on widening the remit of the FOS for small businesses—the detail of that will be known—and to take a view on SMEs’ access to redress more broadly. I hope and believe that we will see significant steps forward.
I have thanked the hon. Member for Norwich South and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk for raising this issue. I also want to mention the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who mentioned Lloyds’ support for SMEs in the Carillion supply chain. I am pleased to report that it has been announced since we have been in the Chamber that Lloyds is taking the required steps to help those facing short-term problems as a result of the Carillion group going into liquidation by providing £50 million to support the SMEs affected. It is essential that the small businesses exposed to the Carillion insolvency should be given the support they need by their lenders. I was with the Business Secretary yesterday when we met representatives of the banks to explain that to them. It is in the UK’s interest that our businesses continue to prosper and thrive. That will mean allowing them ready access to finance at a serviceable cost. This is about getting the balance right, and that is what the Government are helping them to do.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I will try succinctly to summarise the Government’s position. We certainly note the many intensely painful experiences and issues raised in the motion and by hon. Members in the debate. On GRG, it is right that we should wait for the conclusion of the FCA’s investigation of the matters arising from its skilled persons report before determining what further action needs to be taken. On the broader issue of dispute resolution, I remind the House of the existing avenues that are open to businesses, but the FCA is undertaking work to look at the relationship between SMEs and financial services providers. It is also right that we await the next steps in that area. However, I assure the House that this Government will continue to support businesses large and small when addressing these challenges.
Let my final words be these: small businesses and their continued success are critical to the continued growth and improvements in productivity of our economy, and SMEs’ improved confidence in the mechanisms to achieve redress from banks is crucial. In my role in this Government, I will be doing everything I can to ensure that the injustices that have been discussed today are addressed.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank all the hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House who have taken part in this passionate debate today, whether they are self-confessed capitalists, such as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), seeking to challenge crony capitalism or those such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) who are perhaps seeking more traditional socialist transitional demands. There has been almost unanimous support across the House for the motion. We want justice for our constituents and a banking system fit for the 21st century. In effect, we seek nothing less than the renewal of the broken social contract between banks and the public. Unfortunately, the language used in today’s debate has painted a picture of a social contract that lies in tatters. We have heard references to a web of deceit, a dash for cash, systemic abuse, parasitic relationships and asset stripping. Three words that we have heard repeatedly today are “enough is enough”.
I want to make a couple of comments about the Minister’s input. He said in his opening remarks that he and his Government would stop at nothing and spoke of the need for a fundamental culture change, but he then offered little except more warm words. I understand that he has been in his job for just seven days, but this situation has been going on for some time now and the issues are out there, a point which has been made clearly by Members across the House. The Government still seem to favour a solution involving the Financial Ombudsman Service, but even with some extension of its role, it is suitable only for low-level disputes. It has no powers of disclosure. It cannot enforce decisions. It has no teeth. It cannot adjudicate. It cannot deal with complex cases.
John Glen
I fully recognise the frustration that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but I also said that the Government rule nothing out. We will see what the proposals are and respond accordingly. I think that that is a reasonable position given the relationship between the Government and the FCA.
Clive Lewis
I acknowledge the Minister’s remarks, but time is not on the side of many people, so many of whom have been affected for so many years. I understand the Government’s reluctance to say anything today, but they must come to a conclusion quickly. From listening to Members from across the House, we understand that if we rebuild justice and confidence in our banking system, that would be good for business and good for banks and would maximise our country’s economic potential. I will conclude with the words of the late, great Errol Brown of Hot Chocolate fame—one of my favourites—because if we get this right,
“Everyone’s a winner, baby”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is deeply concerned by the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland; notes that there are wider allegations of malpractice in financial services and related industries; believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds; further believes that a solution requires the collective and collaborative effort of regulators, Parliament and Government; and calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them, and the rapid establishment of a tribunal system to deal effectively with financial disputes involving SMEs.
Holocaust Memorial Day
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the mover of the motion, I will say the same as I said at the start of the last debate. There is limited time available, and the allocated time for the mover of the motion is approximately 15 minutes. There will then be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of five minutes.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2018.
It is an honour and a pleasure to move the motion, and I thank the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for accompanying me to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this debate. I also thank all the other Members who are in attendance. It is a particular honour to start this year’s debate having responded to last year’s debate as the Minister, and I welcome the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), to his position. It was my first time responding to a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons, and I believe that it is his first time doing so this afternoon. I had been in post for a few months, however, and perhaps had an easier time than he will, so we all wish him the best of luck and congratulate him on his appointment. I also congratulate him and his Department on the recent announcement of £144,000 of funding to tackle anti-Semitism on our university campuses, which is unfortunately absolutely necessary.
When I spoke last year, I talked about my beliefs and religious place at that time. This year, I move the motion as a full member of the Jewish community, but when I responded to the debate last year, I was not quite there yet, although I was on the way. It is therefore a double pleasure to move the motion today.
Holocaust Memorial Day is well known to all of us in the Chamber, and hopefully to the broader country. It is held annually on 27 January and was established by the Holocaust Educational Trust. All Members are indebted to Karen Pollock, who is in the Gallery today, and to all her team for the fantastic work they do.
Holocaust Memorial Day commemorates the date on which allied forces liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau and was established by the Bill introduced by former Member Andrew Dismore, following his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1999. The first Holocaust Memorial Day was commemorated on 27 January 2001.
Last year’s theme was how life goes on, and this year’s theme is the power of words, which is a reminder that the holocaust started not with gas chambers, round ups and cattle trucks but with hate-filled words. That is perhaps of great resonance today, as we consider the continuing blight of anti-Semitism, prejudice and intolerance in our society and, sadly, in our politics. I am proud that as a Government, with strong cross-party support, we adopted the international definition of anti-Semitism, which UK police forces are sadly having to use more than they should.
Holocaust education became a part of the English national curriculum for key stage 3 in 1991 and has remained ever since—I think there is ongoing support for holocaust education to remain in the curriculum. The holocaust is the only historical event that has remained a compulsory part of the national curriculum.
The holocaust is a part of history that is taught across the curriculum—it is taught in English, religious studies and citizenship—and I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in delivering that curriculum across the UK. Although there are no formal requirements for holocaust education in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, it is of course regularly taught.
When I was a history teacher, I used to be responsible for teaching the holocaust as part of the curriculum in my school and, as I commented last year from the Dispatch Box, it was always very difficult to deliver, not least because of the content. The enormity of this event is very difficult to convey to young people. It is difficult to explain to young people that within living memory and within the lifetime of people here today—some of whom experienced it, and some of whom may even have participated in it—whole communities were wiped out across Europe. Communities that had been there for centuries and that were integral parts of the history of those European states, and of Europe itself, no longer exist.
One way in which the scale can be seen—I recommend a visit—is at the Czech Memorial Scrolls Museum at the Westminster synagogue, where there are 1,564 Torah scrolls that come from communities that no long exist, wiped off the face of Europe by the holocaust. Whatever we try to deliver in schools, powerful though it may be, nothing compares to visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau or one of the other camps, where the industrial scale of this inhumanity can be fully understood. Many Members here, along with many students across the country, have benefited from the programme run through the Holocaust Educational Trust. I encourage Members who have not already done so to take part in the programme if they have the opportunity.
Nothing can compare to the testimony of survivors, and those of us who attended the reception in Speaker’s House a few days ago heard some of those testimonies and saw the sadly dwindling numbers of survivors. As every year passes, fewer and fewer survivors remain. Last year, I told the story of Zigi Shipper, and I ended on his comments. After going back to Auschwitz after a very long time, having been convinced by his family, he stood beneath the world-renowned “Arbeit macht frei” sign, and he said that he felt nothing. It meant nothing to him because he had survived. He had built his life and had been victorious over those who had tried to destroy him. That was very powerful testimony.
This year, I want to tell the story of another survivor, Miriam Friedman, whom I had the privilege of meeting here at a Board of Deputies Mitzvah Day. It is important to tell these stories, because they can do more justice to this appalling period of history than anything I can think of to say. Miriam was born in Bratislava in 1934 and she told me she remembered a happy family life in an Orthodox religious family. They had a textile business. Her mother was a housewife and also highly educated. Miriam was one of six children. She attended a Jewish kindergarten in a community where Jews were very much a part of the fabric of that society. She lived an active Jewish life. Of course all that changed with the German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1939, where Slovak fascists copied the anti-Semitic policies of Nazis.
When that war broke out, Miriam and her family were forced to move. They lived in several different apartments and eventually moved town. When the decree came for all Jews to meet at the railway station, a family friend who was part of the Slovak police saved her. This is the story; it was all by chance and circumstance that they were lucky enough to know this particular person. A Jewish doctor proclaimed that the family had typhus and could not go on the train because they were infectious. So they were lucky on that occasion, but a short time later they were not so lucky. A loudspeaker announced that all Jews had to adhere to a curfew and be off the streets by 6 pm. Her father, sadly, was unable to comply with that and they never saw him again.
The remainder of Miriam’s family were eventually saved by two other families who agreed to hide them in a basement in a large block of flats. They were there until the end of the war. She told me the story of a day when the guards had heard a rumour that there were Jews living in that building and had come to search the apartment block. She told me that their lives had depended on the kindness of another neighbour in the block, who knew these particular Germans were coming and managed to get them so drunk that they were convinced they did not need to search this particular area of the building. She said that hiding and hearing that noise, her and her family contemplated suicide at that time. I hate to use the word “lucky”, because this was not a lucky existence, but in some respects she was lucky to have survived, because of circumstance. Sadly, Miriam later found out that the Nazis had murdered her father, brother and sister. She moved to the UK and now lives in London, and has shared her story and her testimony through the Holocaust Educational Trust and others.
Miriam’s story really fits in with this year’s theme of the power of words. Words really do matter, as we know in this place—I am talking not just about the words of those who spout hate, but the words of those whose job it is to call that hate out. I think we would all agree that silence is no excuse, nor are weasel words or bland statements, when words of intolerance and racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism, are ever spoken. Miriam’s story shows plainly what happens when a people are demonised and scapegoated and when conspiracy theories are left to run.
It is very sad that in Britain in 2017-18 anti-Semitism and racism at all should be a problem, but new figures revealed by the Community Security Trust last July showed that anti-Semitic incidents against the Jewish community in the UK have reached unprecedented levels—the highest levels of hate crime against Jews since records began 33 years ago. Let us just think about that for a moment; we are talking about the highest recorded number of incidents against Jewish people since records began more than three decades ago. That is why I welcome the announcement of £144,000 to help fight anti-Semitism on our campuses, and it is why this day is so important and why this debate in Parliament every year is so important.
In September, a study by the CST and the Institute for Jewish Policy Research found that stronger anti-Israel attitudes are linked to stronger anti-Semitic attitudes among Britons. In last year’s debate, I said from the Dispatch Box that I was becoming increasingly concerned about what I call the Israelification of anti-Semitism. That is not to say that people should not be allowed legitimately to call out the Government of Israel, or any other Government, but criticism of the Israeli Government is being used by some for more sinister purposes. That Israelification needs to be called out.
I have seen Israelification for myself. As I mentioned after the general election in the Westminster Hall debate on abuse and intimidation of candidates, during the campaign, in June last year, I was approached and screamed at for being “Israeli scum” and “Zionist scum”. I reported the individuals to the police, but they were unable to find them. Those same individuals found me again in a shopping centre in Doncaster on the Thursday before Christmas and again subjected me to a torrent of abuse. They ended up questioning why a Jew would want to be ordering food in KFC, and followed me to the exit asking me why I do not tell people that I am Jewish before elections. It started with anti-Israeli sentiment and descended very quickly into some significant anti-Semitic incidents. I must say that South Yorkshire police and Humberside police have been absolutely fantastic. We need to call out that kind of behaviour wherever it happens, which was why I did so from the Dispatch Box last year.
We have to be honest that we have a new threat: the new smear that anti-Semitism is being used as a cover for other things or as part of a witch hunt. I do not wish to step into party politics too much, but it is important that in debates like this we call out campaigns such as Labour Against the Witchhunt, which has called for
“the immediate lifting of all suspensions and expulsions from Labour Party membership which were…connected to the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign.”
This is a minority—the vast majority of Labour party members and people in politics throughout the country have no truck with any of this—but let us remember what some of those suspensions have been for. They have been for people who have claimed that Judaism is not a religion but a crime syndicate; people who have called holocaust education in schools a holocaust indoctrination programme; people who have questioned what good Jews have done; and people who have claimed that the Jews financed the slave trade and who attacked Holocaust Memorial Day—the very day we are debating and respecting today. We have to guard against those who seek to spread this new smear against anti-Semitism, in the strongest way we can.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is the power of words, and words really do matter, which is why, regardless of which side of politics we are on, we must all ensure that we and our leaders call out this sort of hatred whenever and wherever it exists. It is a problem not only on the left of politics but on the right. We saw it in Charlottesville, where people on the right marched in Nazi-esque torch-lit parades. It was alleged that some of them were chanting “Jews will not replace us.” So this is a problem on the left and the right and leaders most call it out wherever it happens.
I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, of your clear instruction at the start of the debate that the mover of the motion should not take more than 15 minutes, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. We have a problem with anti-Semitism in this country at the moment, and we know it, which is why Holocaust Memorial Day is so important. Nevertheless, we should never forget that in many ways we are lucky that the lives of most Jewish people in this country are safe, and they can take part in their daily activities as full members of the community. When I was vice-chair of the all-party group against anti-Semitism, we saw a very different experience just across the channel when we attended a school in Brussels that was guarded by a Belgian military tank and armed guards. I asked the young people there whether they would ever go out wearing their kippah, and they said no.
There was recently a very sad story from France that did not get a great deal of coverage here, but I think it demonstrates why, more than ever, Holocaust Memorial Day is important. It is the story of a French Jewish teenage girl who was violently assaulted in a heinous anti-Semitic attack. She was wearing a Jewish school uniform when she was set upon in a Paris suburb and slashed across the face. She was left bleeding, shocked and very, very injured. This is one of a number of incidents that have happened. I ask Members to think: this was a 15-year-old girl who was slashed across the face for no other reason than that she happened to be Jewish.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, for raising such an important issue and for speaking so powerfully about this issue. Does the case that he has just highlighted not make the role of the Community Security Trust even more important this year and in the years to come, and should we not be throwing our weight behind it and urging everyone else to do so too?
Andrew Percy
The hon. Lady knows an awful lot about anti-Semitism, and I could not agree more with what she said about the role of the CST.
I will end there on that example. We have heard Miriam’s story and the story of a 15-year-old girl, living now, here in modern Europe, who was slashed across the face for no other reason than that she was Jewish. That surely, surely proves to everybody why the Holocaust is such an important element of our curriculum and why this day, and remembering it and having this debate every year, is so important to ensure that this sort of intolerance is consigned to where it should be: the dustbin of history.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on securing this important debate and on his powerful and inspiring speech. I, too, was privileged to attend Tuesday’s reception in the Speaker’s apartments to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, which was organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust.
To be in the presence of Holocaust survivors, and to speak to such remarkable people and hear their testimonies, is deeply moving. It must intensify our determination to challenge anti-Semitism, which was described by the late Robert Wistrich as “the longest hatred”. Now, more than 70 years later, the scourge of anti-Semitism still stains our society. Anti-Semitism is not confined to one strand of politics—it is on the right and on the left. It is shocking that anti-Semitism stains the Labour party, too. Much speedier and stronger action must be taken by the party itself to challenge this unacceptable phenomenon. The claims of some members that allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour party should be dismissed as “slurs against the leadership” are appalling and should be met with the contempt that they deserve.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Community Security Trust, which so accurately monitors anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic discourse. Its latest report shows a shocking 30% recorded rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK for the first six months of 2017, with 767 such incidents reported.
The rise of anti-Semitic hate crime on our streets, meeting little or no challenge from the authorities, is a matter of growing concern. For example, it was reported that, on 11 December 2017, Tahra Ahmed, a volunteer running an aid network helping the survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, claimed that the 71 people who perished were
“burned in a Jewish sacrifice.”
Mark Gardiner of CST rightly condemned this as
“a new depth of grotesque anti-Semitic racism.”
On 8 December 2017, at the American embassy protests against President Trump’s announcement recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, demonstrators chanted:
“Khaybar Khaybar, iya Yahud, Jaish Mohammed, sa Yahud”.
Translated, that means, “Remember Khaybar, the army of Mohammed is returning.” This refers to the battle of Khaybar in 628, where Jews were massacred and expelled from the town in what is now Saudi Arabia. Swastikas were also displayed at that demonstration. The event was organised by groups including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Stop the War Coalition and the friends of al-Quds. No action has been taken against this anti-Semitic hate speech on our streets. Why?
Holocaust Memorial Day is a time for reflection. In the UK, it began in this place when Andrew Dismore, the then Member of Parliament for Hendon, received cross-party backing for his private Member’s Bill. That resulted in the first UK Holocaust Memorial Day in January 2001.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. May I just say that, for me, Holocaust Memorial Day also includes other genocides such as the one I witnessed in Bosnia, where I buried 104 women and children in a mass grave, the Rohingya, and also Cambodia. I think all of us in this Chamber would recognise that the scourge of holocaust still remains with us.
Mrs Ellman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I draw his attention to the official statement about what Holocaust Memorial Day constitutes. It states very clearly that in addition to recognising the holocaust, it recognises other atrocities that have taken place since that time, including in Darfur and Cambodia. That has always been written into the official remit of Holocaust Memorial Day.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Further to that intervention, may I also say to the hon. Lady that at this time we ought to be celebrating and commemorating the Christians who gave up their lives to save Jewish families during the second world war? The brother of my grandfather, Jan Kawczynski, hid Jewish families on his estate. When the Germans found out, they shot his daughter and his wife, and then him. I think that this is a very important time to remember those Christians who sacrificed their lives to protect Jewish neighbours.
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. Indeed, the people he named and others who contributed similar actions are recognised under a special category of the “righteous gentiles”. They are recognised in the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem and also recognised in special British honours. They therefore have a very special place in our history and our minds.
Today we must reflect on the horrors of the past and the disturbing trends of the present. Together, as we commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day 2018, we must ensure that action is taken to tackle the longest hatred.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is an honour to take part in the debate on such a serious subject. Later this month, I shall be attending the annual commemoration for Holocaust Memorial Day hosted by Barnet Council in the quadrangle of Middlesex University, as I have been doing for many years now. This is a really important occasion for us in Barnet because we take huge pride in being a diverse, inclusive borough, made up of people from many different faiths, cultures and ethnicities. We are also immensely proud to be the home of one of the largest Jewish populations between New York and Tel Aviv.
The Jewish community plays a hugely valuable role in the borough of Barnet—in business, in public services, in schools, in civic life and in so many other ways. We are incredibly lucky in north London to be a place where many Jewish people have chosen to make their home. They are a community who have profoundly enriched our culture and quality of life, and I was very much aware of that in my years growing up in St John’s Wood. So for me, one of the reasons why I find the stories of those who perished during the holocaust to be so distressing is that it feels very close to home—so disturbing; so personal—to know that this horror was inflicted on the parents, grandparents and wider family of people who are such a core part of my network of friends, family and colleagues, without whom I would find life to be pretty bleak. Of course, I also have the privilege of representing a number of constituents who are holocaust survivors. I pay particular tribute to Mala Tribich for all that she does with the Holocaust Educational Trust to educate the new generation about what happened.
In my view, the holocaust was the single greatest act of evil in human history. I know that historians debate that. The numbers dying at the hands of Stalin were as great, and atrocities such as the holodomor in Ukraine were certainly acts of the most unspeakable cruelty, but the attempt by the Nazi regime to wipe out an entire ethnic group and harness 20th-century technology to deliver murder on an industrial scale seems to me to be without parallel in terms of the sheer stomach-turning depravity and evil of what occurred.
Last February, I had the privilege of visiting Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem on a trip hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel. It was my second chance to see that exhibition. I would encourage every hon. Member in the Chamber to visit if they have the opportunity. Towards the very end of a truly emotionally draining experience, as the account of those terrible events unfolds before you, you reach the exhibit on the righteous among nations—the people who risked their lives to save Jewish people from the terrible fate that so many of them suffered at the hands of the Nazis. They include people such as Oscar and Emilie Schindler, whose story was captured so powerfully in Stephen Spielberg’s film; Nicholas Winton, who helped nearly 700 children to escape from persecution in what was then Czechoslovakia and never sought any recognition for his efforts; the people in Denmark who smuggled their Jewish population to safety in Sweden; and the population of Albania who defied the orders of the Nazis and refused to hand over lists of Jewish Albanians and gave sanctuary to Jews fleeing Germany. The remarkable assistance given by Albania was grounded in a concept called besa—a code of honour which literally means “to keep the promise”. One who acts according to besa is someone who keeps their word—someone to whom one can trust one’s life and the lives of one’s family.
While we are considering the most extreme example of the evil of which humanity is capable, this dark period of history has another side to it. In relation to certain individuals, it demonstrates great acts of courage and compassion. One of the many reasons why we should never, ever forget the events we are reflecting on today is to ensure that if the threat of this kind of atrocity were ever to return to this continent, we would not be found wanting—we would be among those brave enough to speak out and do everything we could to prevent it happening again. Today, once again, we all commit to oppose anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms and wherever it occurs.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). We have visited the synagogue in Southgate together. I know how strongly she feels about these matters, as I think everybody does now.
Holocaust Memorial Day marks the darkest hour in human history. We remember and mourn the 6 million Jews murdered, as well as the Roma, disabled and LGBT victims of Nazi atrocities. We have a moral responsibility to listen to the stories of holocaust survivors. They speak not only for themselves but for those who did not survive to tell their story.
Earlier this year, I heard one such testimony from Edgar Guest, who spoke to pupils at Oasis Academy, a school in my constituency. Edgar was born in Budapest. In 1941, when Hungary joined the war, he lost his citizenship and was classified as an “alien Jew”. After Germany invaded, many of Edgar’s relatives were deported to Auschwitz and he was sent to the Budapest ghetto. He was marched halfway towards the railway station before being told to turn around and return to the ghetto. There he was forced to sleep in a room of 30, in a ghetto of 70,000 Jews, where he survived by earning an extra cup of soup a day by clearing away the dead bodies in the streets. His story is one small remembrance of the barbarity of the Nazi regime.
Edgar lives in Britain today, and he is still sharing his story at the age of 87. I would like to pay tribute to his courage and strength. The impact he has on school students is something to behold. We must give serious thought to how we carry forward such a message when we no longer have survivors with us to provide such powerful testimony.
The holocaust reminds us of where racism and anti-Semitism can lead. We must remember that the holocaust was the end of a process of state-sponsored racism that began on the streets of Munich and Berlin. The twisted road to Auschwitz began with a political party whose racist rhetoric won an election in a democratic society. There must be no complacency in the fight against anti-Semitism. We must tackle racism at its roots, weeding it out wherever we find it.
I applaud the Government for their adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. It gives us clarity in this fight, and it is unequivocal in stating that holocaust denial, comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and allegations of Jewish conspiracies are modern forms of this ancient hatred. I would also like to voice my support for the proscription of far-right fascist groups.
Despite the horrors of the holocaust, anti-Semitism has not disappeared. We have even seen its rise in British society recently, including, I am ashamed to say, in my own party. We must condemn unequivocally and combat relentlessly this despicable trend. We must remember that the fight against racism is also one of education. We must fight for our anti-racist values and ensure we instil a respect for tolerance, equality and human rights in future generations. I would like to thank Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Educational Trust for their dedication to this task, and in particular for facilitating talks by survivors, such as that of Edgar Guest in Enfield. We must hear the words of survivors; we must remember the holocaust’s victims; and we must commit ourselves to the fight against racism and anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly head.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), and I commend her for her bravery in speaking on those particular subjects. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on introducing the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on her impassioned speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may we place on the record our thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing the Holocaust Educational Trust to host its reception in Speaker’s House on Tuesday? That enabled us to honour the memory of the victims of the holocaust, but also to celebrate the survivors. Most importantly of all, in my view, it allowed us to congratulate the young ambassadors of the Holocaust Educational Trust, who are now spreading the word among young people about the horrors of the holocaust.
When I was at school—I was at school with many Jewish children from the area—no one ever spoke about the holocaust: it was forgotten about. When Kitty Hart-Moxon visited this House, following her 90th birthday, I had the honour of having tea with her, and she described her journey of coming to this country and finding that the Jewish population of this country did not wish to talk about the holocaust. However, she was brave enough to speak out about its horrors and to make sure that young people understood what had happened. It is very hard to grasp the concept of human beings attempting to extinguish other human beings on an industrial scale. The fact that 6 million people were murdered systematically is very hard to grasp, but each individual is an individual case.
Bob Stewart
Just before she died, my mother told me that she went to Belsen as a Special Operations Executive operative in April 1945. I asked why she had never ever told me that before. She said, “Because I was ashamed.” I said, “Why were you ashamed?” She said, “Because this happened when my generation was living, and I felt ashamed that it happened. We were responsible because we did nothing about it in England.”
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It allows me to join others in congratulating Karen Pollock and her team on their wonderful work. I will never forget my visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and the young people who started out brightly at the beginning of the day, but who, as the horrors unfolded, became quieter and quieter. We ended the day on those terrible railway lines, with candles, and that place brings home to everyone what can happen if people stand idly by. We knew, and were instructed, about the systematic approach—this was not a few people who were mad or crazy; it was a systematic approach that involved hundreds, if not thousands, of people who co-operated with the attempt to eliminate the Jewish population.
We should also remember that there is not just Auschwitz-Birkenau but a whole series of other camps, and we should ensure that everyone is aware of the various different death camps that were set up by the Nazis to achieve their desperate aims.
Daniel Kawczynski
On that point, the BBC regularly refers to “Polish death camps”, but there was no such thing. These were concentration camps set up by the Germans in occupied Poland, and it is important to remember that.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and we must ensure that people are educated on that point.
I visited the original Yad Vashem museum and saw at first hand the work that was done. I have also visited the new museum that commemorates all the victims of the holocaust and describes it in some detail. The individual accounts of those who survived the holocaust, now recorded on film, are desperately important, and we must ensure that holocaust deniers, and individuals in society who seek to justify it in some way, are called out in the right way and with the appropriate testimony.
Bob Blackman
I will not give way to the hon. Lady because I have given way twice already and I do not want to take up too much time.
I am glad that we will have our own holocaust museum alongside the Palace of Westminster, and I look forward to that being developed so that we can bring young people here to see the importance of that element of society. There are also actions that we can all take. I was proud to sponsor early-day motion 743 for Holocaust Memorial Day, and I believe that 55 right hon. and hon. Members have signed it so far. The Book of Commitment will be available for Members to sign each day next week between 2pm and 4pm close to the Members’ cloakroom, and I commend that to all Members.
We also have the challenge of combating anti-Semitism on university campuses. One current challenge is that many Jewish children go to Jewish schools and are not exposed to anti-Semitism until they get to university. In my view, we are not preparing our young people sufficiently for what they may face, and I am delighted that the Government are taking action to combat anti-Semitism on university campuses by sponsoring visits for sabbatical officers to go to Auschwitz-Birkenau and to see at first hand what can happen if matters get out of hand.
As we have said, the holocaust started with words and other forms of anti-Semitism, and expanded to what we have seen in the death camps. We must commend all those who speak out against anti-Semitism, from whichever political party. I was proud recently to share a platform with hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches at my local synagogue, Stanmore synagogue, for a question and answer session, during which I commended them for their bravery in standing up and calling out anti-Semitism in their own party. I congratulate them on that, but I am sorry they have to do it. If ever we face such challenges in my party, I know that we will take a very robust approach indeed to combating anti-Semitism.
It is an honour to have participated again in this debate; since my election, I have participated each year in this debate. I trust that we will ensure that nothing like the holocaust ever happens again—certainly not in our lifetimes—on this planet that we all inhabit.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
As we know, the Nazis created and peddled myths about Jewish people; they dehumanised them, representing them as an existential threat to ordinary German citizens. Their propaganda was massively and horrifically effective. Hate-filled words enabled their crimes. It is startling how many of the myths they created reflected the Nazis’ own sickening plans and twisted thinking. In March 1942, well after the campaigns of mass murder had begun, Hitler said that the so-called Jewish wire-pullers aimed to
“unite democracy and Bolshevism into…a conspiracy…to annihilate all of Europe”.
They peddled fear: democracy a threat from the west, Bolshevism a threat from the east, and Jewish people threatening Germany and Germans from within. Goebbels said:
“The Jew will not exterminate the peoples of Europe. Rather, he will be the victim of his own attack”.
This web of fiction was channelled into cruel and cynical propaganda, and it enabled the holocaust.
Ensuring that such fantasies would be believed by ordinary people was not easy. In 1937, teachers were instructed to
“plant the knowledge of the true danger of the Jew deep in the hearts of our youth from their childhood”—
done using children’s stories. One, “The Poisonous Mushroom”, told children that just as they should not assume they could tell the poisonous mushroom in the forest from the good ones, they could not assume that Jewish people were good and honest just because they seemed that way—truly heart-breaking.
The state-sponsored propaganda also had effect in the Nazis’ puppet states. In Estonia, many of the mass killings of the holocaust were perpetrated by local collaborators, with very little oversight by the Nazi German occupying force. In 1941, Belgian collaborators launched a pogrom in Antwerp, burning synagogues and targeting the chief rabbi. It was among the first of the events of the holocaust in Belgium. The yellow star law had not even been introduced. The wave of unrestrained violence that night was directly and immediately incited by a screening of the Nazi propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew”, one of the most evil works of propaganda ever produced. It shows the squalor and disease Jewish people were forced to live in but claimed it was something they chose. Brutal, dehumanising scenes of Jewish people crammed in the ghetto were interlaced with scenes of rats swarming from a sewer, while the voiceover says that the rats are
“just like the Jews among human beings…a race of parasites”.
The rhetoric has not gone away, in the UK or elsewhere. We have heard about the Nazi white supremacists marching through Charlottesville, their faces uncovered, some sporting machine guns, chanting, “Jews will not replace us”—a direct repetition of the Nazi lie. In an example from another continent, in October, following the debate last year in this place, the Myanmar embassy sent me a dossier, at the heart of which is a list of historical crimes attributed to the Rohingya Muslims as a group. It painted them as an existential threat to the Buddhist people of Rakhine, enemies manipulating the international community into sympathy with them. Where have we heard that before?
The language of extermination has power because the ground has been prepared. Nazis used teachers, newspapers, newsreels and the radio to do that; today, sowers of hate are equipped with the internet and social media. The propaganda of hate builds suspicion and prejudice until ordinary people believe a complete and utter lie. The history of the holocaust teaches us that if this kind of propaganda is allowed to breed and infect communities and even states, the lie—the evil myth—that those people create can be turned into murder on an industrial scale, the reality of a genocide, the holocaust: 6 million innocent men, women and children brutally and horrifically murdered.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
East Renfrewshire is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish population. As their MP and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, I take my responsibility to that community very seriously.
Many Jewish people came to East Renfrewshire to flee the Nazis from the early 1930s onwards, and several holocaust survivors made the area their home, including the much-missed Ernest Levy. Although the number of survivors still with us falls, their stories ring around classrooms to ensure that our children are aware of what can happen when hate is left uncontrolled. We must never forget. The power of survivors’ words has been recorded in interviews that anyone can access via the Gathering the Voices website, of which the words of my constituents Henry and Ingrid Wuga form part.
Sadly, when we think of the holocaust, it can become simply a number—the number of those killed by the Nazi party: 6 million Jews. However, we must resist the temptation to reduce the barbarity of the holocaust to just a number of deaths. The magnitude of these crimes is often lost in a number that we simply cannot comprehend. That is why the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” remains so important. I pay tribute to Karen Pollock, whose impact on the next generation’s understanding of the holocaust and anti-Semitism should not be underrated. On a personal level, it has been a true joy to speak and work with her since my election. Karen and her team are defenders of the truth.
Pupils from Williamwood High School, St Ninian’s and myriad other schools in East Renfrewshire have benefited from seeing the reality of what man can do. Next Thursday, I will be attending a holocaust memorial event at Barrhead High School organised by sixth-year pupil Kirsty Robson. Kirsty became one of HET’s holocaust ambassadors after visiting Auschwitz with the trust in 2016, and her event will feature two holocaust survivors, who will discuss their experiences in front of staff and pupils, enabling them to see the contemporary relevance of the holocaust. Young people such as Kirsty are remarkable and vital in ensuring that the memory and lessons of the holocaust live on and are not forgotten when there is no one left to tell their personal story.
Alongside physical structures such as Auschwitz and Birkenau, we have as this year’s theme the power of words—the idea that words can make a difference for both good and evil. We are all aware of Anne Frank’s work and the impact her diaries have had on millions of children, but the power of words is not limited to the smiling young face that appears on the copies of her diaries. In stark contrast to Anne Frank, this theme can apply to Adolf Hitler’s personal lawyer and governor-general of the central government of the occupied Polish territories, Hans Frank. His evil was shown in his words, and the power of words ultimately condemned him. It was his words that enabled Raphael Lemkin to show the systematic action that was taken to wipe the territory clear of Jews and other so-called undesirables. From Lemkin came the very best of words and ideas: the doctrine of genocide—an idea and a word that has fundamentally changed our world order since 1945.
History has shown that words dictate action, and we must continue to challenge the language and views not just of our opponents but our friends, because when we normalise hatred, it leads to a sense that terrible horrors are part of the normal.
One morning, Hans Frank gave a speech at the University in Lviv. He announced the killing of 100,000 individuals. In the afternoon, he went and played a game of chess with his deputy’s wife, and he lost. He played a second game of chess, and he lost. What agitated him was not the immense mass killing in his name, but his failure against a woman in two games of chess.
I will end with the words of Kirsty Robson. I asked her why she felt it was important for her to become an ambassador and to work with the Holocaust Educational Trust to educate her peers. She told me:
“I feel a sense of duty to continue sharing the lessons that can be learned from the Holocaust following my visit. The trust does incredible work and I am utterly proud to have been one of the minds that has been shaped by them. I am steadfast in my belief that we must learn from the mistakes and heartaches of our past, take note of the contemporary relevance of such events and ensure that the world we are shaping is one of acceptance and kindness, free of persecution and prejudice.”
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on securing this important debate. As he reminded us, the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day this year is the power of words. Like him, I will speak about what I think are the most powerful words in this context: the testimony of the survivors of the holocaust.
Like others, I have experienced hearing survivors speaking, in particular to children at schools they have come to speak at in my constituency in Liverpool and to those who have gone on the visit to Auschwitz arranged through the Holocaust Educational Trust, and also in the work I did between 2005 and 2010 at the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Laxton, Nottinghamshire. Nothing can compare to the impact that the words of survivors have in shaping the mind and educating children about the horrors of what happened during the holocaust.
Holocaust Memorial Day has a vital twin importance: remembering the Nazi holocaust—so appallingly denied by some—but also dedicating ourselves to challenging modern-day anti-Semitism, racism, genocide and other mass atrocities. Rudi Oppenheimer was 11 years old and living outside Amsterdam when the Nazis invaded. He and members of his family ended up in Bergen-Belsen, but he survived, as did his brother and sister. His testimony of his experience of the holocaust has educated children around the world. When he was asked in a school why he thinks his testimony is so important, his answer was:
“Because we haven’t learned the lessons yet at all”.
All of us have heard the voices of Tutsi from Rwanda, Muslims from Bosnia and young Yazidi women. These are just three examples; tragically, I could cite many, many others. On Monday, I hosted an event in Speaker’s House organised by War Child focusing on mental health and psychosocial support for children in conflict areas. We heard incredibly powerful first-hand testimony from two fantastic young refugees: Enana, who is originally from Syria, and Oscar, who is originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Their testimony about what their countries have been through, and what they personally have been through as refugees from conflict situations, was very powerful and reminds us why Holocaust Memorial Day has such huge contemporary relevance.
In Liverpool, Holocaust Memorial Day is marked annually. Tonight, the University of Liverpool Jewish Society is hosting an event with holocaust survivor Joanna Millan. Next week, the Lord Mayor of Liverpool will open the Fathers House holocaust exhibition in Liverpool town hall. On memorial day itself, the Mayor of Liverpool will join faith leaders in a special service at the town hall to pay tribute to all those who lost their lives in the holocaust and genocides around the world.
Let me finish with another quotation from Rudi Oppenheimer, because this was the theme for last year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, about which the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole spoke: “Nobody should stand by”. Nobody should stand by when we see anti-Semitism or any form of persecution or bullying. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) rightly reminded us, we should not stand by when we see the awful persecution of the Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar/Burma. We should not stand by when we see the appalling humanitarian crisis in Yemen. And we should not stand by when we see rape used as a weapon of war, as it is in so many places, including against the Rohingya and in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere. Let us, on a cross-party basis, use the opportunity of today’s debate and Holocaust Memorial Day next week to say once again that we will not stand by. We will listen to the voices of the survivors—be they from the holocaust, be they from Syria, be they Yazidi women, or be they from the situations in Myanmar or Yemen—and that we will work together as colleagues to stop all forms of oppression and challenge all forms of racism and persecution wherever they rear their ugly head.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on securing the debate.
I remember attending the first Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration in Hendon back in 2001. It was held in a marquee in Hendon Park, on a site that has become a memorial garden. I think that that is a fitting tribute to the millions of people who were killed in the Shoah, particularly as so many relatives and friends of those who were murdered have made their homes in my constituency. I was delighted to see in the new year honours list three names of constituents who had had direct experience of the Nazi atrocities, and I think it appropriate to place on the record their names and experiences.
Harry Olmer was awarded an OBE. He is a Mill Hill resident who was born in Sosnowiec, near the German border in south-west Poland. In the spring of 1940, his family were sent to another small village, as life in his home town was becoming very difficult. In 1942, Jewish residents were expelled from their homes, and after a selection, Harry found himself in Plasnow concentration camp, near Krakow, then a munitions factory. He was then moved to Buchenwald, and then to another munitions factory in Schlieben. As the war came to an end, he found himself in Theresienstadt concentration camp, whence he was finally liberated by the Red Army on 8 May 1945. Two months later, he came to the UK, and worked as a dental technician and studied at evening classes before being accepted at Glasgow University to study dentistry. He later served in the British Army as a dentist.
A Hendon resident, Bernd Koschland, was awarded an OBE for services to holocaust education. I have known Bernd for many years, and he is well known to many people who attend the holocaust memorial service in Hendon each year. He came to the United Kingdom with the Kindertransport in 1939, after his father was deported to Dachau on Kristallnacht. On his father’s release, Bernd’s parents made the difficult, but sensible, decision to send him to England on the Kindertransport. In March 1939, he made the journey to England, and was later joined by his sister. In addition to his holocaust education work, Bernd was the chairman of the Barnet Multi-Faith Forum for 14 years, and I had the pleasure of working alongside him.
I want to mention the name of one other person, my Edgware constituent Lieutenant Colonel Mordaunt Cohen, who is the most senior Jewish officer who served in the British Army during the second world war and who received an MBE for his services to second world war education. Mordaunt joined the British Army after hearing about the horrors of Nazi Germany from children who had arrived on the Kindertransport. He fought in Burma from 1942 to 1945, which was in itself a horrific experience. After the war, he became chairman of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women. He celebrated his 100th birthday last year, and it was a huge pleasure and privilege for me to visit him in his home on that occasion.
To all three constituents, I say “Mazel tov, and thank you for all that you have achieved throughout your lives, particularly here in the United Kingdom.”
Last year, I spoke about a constituent of mine called Renee Salt. Since then I have visited Renee on several occasions to talk about certain things and to eat much of her cake, which she bakes at home. During one of our discussions, we spoke about another Hendon constituent, who died in 2008 and whom I had known. That was the Rev. Leslie Hardman. His link with Renee was that she was a captive in Bergen-Belsen, and he was one of the first British Army chaplains who liberated the camp. In his book “The Survivors”, he described how his colonel told him to go to the camp because
“you’ll find a lot of your people.”
Leslie also wrote that one of his first acts was to officiate over the mass burial of 5,000 bodies, a scene that he described as “bodies interlocked, coagulated, disintegrated”.
I have a lot more to say, but time will not allow me to do so. Let me leave the House with a quotation from someone relatively unknown, Salmen Gradowski. On 6 September 1944, he wrote:
“May the world at least behold a drop, a fraction of this tragic world in which we lived.”
We can consider those words from the perspective of history, but knowing that they were found after liberation in a flask buried in the grounds of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematorium makes them more powerful. I think that they illustrate this year’s theme of Holocaust Memorial Day, the power of words.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid that I must reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for sponsoring the debate. It is a pleasure for me to co-sponsor it. This is the fifth or sixth time I have co-sponsored a debate on this important day. When I was first a Member of Parliament, I was proud to do so, and now that I am back in the House, I am even more delighted.
Let me also congratulate the indomitable Karen Pollock, who is in the public Gallery and whom I have known for many years. Without her, I do not believe that this day, and the impact and reach that it has across the country, would be as strong. She really does deserve an enormous amount of credit.
The theme of Holocaust Memorial Day this year is the power of words. I was reminded of that when I read some words only earlier this morning from Anne Frank, that remarkable young girl who wrote so beautifully in Amsterdam all those years ago. She wrote:
“When I write I can shake off all my cares; my sorrow disappears; my spirits are revived.”
That is such a powerful set of words for such a dreadful time by a remarkable young woman.
That comment and the power of words brings me to my own constituent. Eastbourne does not have a large Jewish community; in fact, it is fairly minuscule—probably only 40 or 50. Like everyone else in the Chamber and many across the country, however, I am here because we know that what happened was so wicked—as was what has happened so many times since in the different genocides from Rwanda to Cambodia and the rest—that if we do not emphasise and talk about this day, there is the constant danger that it will happen again. Indeed, it is depressing that when I last spoke on this day in the House the Yazidis were perfectly safe in Iraq and Syria. Two years later, they have almost been destroyed as a people. I therefore profoundly believe that the commemoration and remembrance on this day must never stop.
I have an extraordinary constituent in the small Jewish community in Eastbourne called Dorit Oliver-Wolff. She is a survivor, and she recently wrote an autobiography called “From Yellow Star to Pop Star.” She was born in Yugoslavia. When the Nazis invaded, she and her mother moved to Budapest when she was only five or six years old, and they somehow survived through the four or five years of the war from hand to mouth, travelling from place to place, creating new identities. It was when she was in Budapest that she first realised she was Jewish: she was only five years old and a woman spat at her in the street and called her “A stinking Jew.” Can anyone imagine anything more utterly incomprehensible than that to a five-year-old?
Dorit survived and flourished, and moved to Eastbourne 10 or 15 years ago. She is a remarkable woman. I highlight her story because in many ways she emphasises one fundamental strength irrespective of the wickedness of Governments and people: the unfailing goodness and strength of individuals. That was true in the war when so many individuals saved so many Jewish people from Poland to Bulgaria to Albania. They are the reason why I profoundly believe this day is worth remembering and will continually improve human nature.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I rise very briefly to congratulate the ambassador programme and particularly one of my constituents who is part of it. Although we are talking about the power of words, it is often the person delivering those words who makes them more powerful, so it was fantastic to attend the event at Speaker’s House where we heard testimony from survivors, including a 94-year-old lady who said she would pass on the baton to the young ambassadors in that room, and rightly so at 94; it is about time somebody else took that strain.
Joe Collins is a constituent of mine. He first came to my attention because he is an active Conservative campaigner, but, more importantly, Joe is all the things that I am not: he got a very good set of A-level results and is going to York University, and he is young, bright and charismatic. If he is giving the message to young people, they are much more likely to listen.
Joe attended the lessons from Auschwitz programme and has subsequently become one of the young ambassadors. He has arranged events at his school; he is arranging a marathon; and he fundraises all sorts of things to publicise this work. He brought Susi Bechhofer to Walsall Academy to speak to the students there. Her story is an interesting one. She was brought over on the Kindertransport when she was three years old to live in Cardiff. My understanding is that the people who acted as foster parents were supposed to undertake not to convert, or attempt to convert, the people they were fostering. Unfortunately, in this case, the foster father was a Baptist reverend and he had the children baptised, changed their names and brought them up as Baptists.
Susi became Grace Mann, and it was not until she was at school, preparing to take an English literature exam, that she discovered that that was not her original name. She was queueing up in alphabetical order with other children in the M section when the teacher came over to her and said, “You are in the wrong place. You should be with the Bs.” She had a vague recollection of being Susi Bechhofer, and spent the rest of the exam thinking about her new identity.
As Susi discovered more about her original identity, she decided that, having been raised as a Baptist, she would stick with the religion that she had grown up with, but that she would find out more about her other one. Part of the point of her story is that it is not just those who were killed or who suffered torture in the camps who were the victims of this dreadful abuse. Let us remember that 6 million people—two thirds of the European Jewish population at that time—were wiped out, but the ramifications went far wider. The ripples went on. I am grateful to Joe and to the ambassadors programme, and I am grateful that Susi took the time to visit Walsall Academy in my constituency and continues to share the message with young people.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on bringing this matter to the House and speaking so well. I know that many Members will have appreciated the way in which he introduced the debate. I want to concentrate my comments on the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project and how that has impacted on Northern Ireland. The project was delivered in Northern Ireland in March 2017, following the receipt of a grant of £160,000 from the Departments of Education and for Communities in Northern Ireland. This was the first time such a project had been delivered in Northern Ireland since 2008. I pay tribute to Karen Pollock for her lobbying work to ensure that every component part of the United Kingdom has access to the project.
We talk about the power of words, but actions also matter. For the past 10 years, various Departments and politicians in Northern Ireland had been saying that the issue of Auschwitz mattered, but when the time came for them to put their hand in their pocket and put departmental money on the table to make the project happen, it became clear that their words were simply lip service. I want to pay tribute to the two Ministers from the devolved Assembly whose actions made a difference: Mr Peter Weir from the Department of Education and Mr Paul Givan from the Department for Communities. They came together and ensured that money was put on the table to allow the project to take place in Northern Ireland. Other Departments, and the other Ministers who previously held those posts, will hope that they can come up to the same mark in the future, if the devolved Assembly continues in place.
Through the project, 166 students from 76 schools across Northern Ireland, as well as 27 teachers, were able to take part in a unique educational experience laid on by the Holocaust Educational Trust. The four-part course was open to two students from every school and college in Northern Ireland and incorporated a one-day visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau. On the visit, students first visited the town where the Nazi concentration and death camps were located and where, before the war, 58% of the population was Jewish. Students then visited Auschwitz to see the former camp’s barracks and crematoriums and to witness the piles of belongings that were seized by the Nazis. Finally they spent time at the main killing centre in Birkenau, where the day concluded with candle lighting and a period of reflection to remember the 6 million Jews murdered in the holocaust and the other victims of Nazi persecution.
We say that the term “the power of words” is important, but when we get the chance to speak to those students, we realise that the power of silence is really incredible, as they could not form words due to the tears coursing down their cheeks as they wondered what could have been, after seeing at first hand man’s hatred of man and how we must strive to ensure that such a thing never happens again. I congratulate all those who have taken part in this debate, and I hope that the power of words and actions will speak volumes for us all.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for bringing the debate to the House. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions so far today. As we have heard, the theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is the power of words, and it is important to remember the context in which Nazism arose after the treaty of Versailles and the 1929 crash. A murderous regime was able to take hold of Germany during terrible economic conditions, and it then drove its ideology through Europe and tried to undertake the genocide of my people—the Jewish people.
Last autumn, I met Martin Kapel, who lives in Headingley in my constituency, at a Woodcraft Folk event. He was talking to boys and girls who were the same age as him when he was expelled from Germany by the Nazis. My boys, who are also Woodcraft Folkers, were the age he was when he was taken from his family. The realisation hit me hard when I saw my own boys with Martin and I had to think of him enduring the grim reality of the loss of his family.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that holocaust survivors such as Solly Irving are remembered, with their stories living on after they pass, so that we do not repeat the mistakes that have been made and instead create a better world for everyone?
Alex Sobel
That is one of the most important lessons of Holocaust Memorial Day and of our memories of the holocaust.
Many people’s only real insight into what the camps or the ghettos were like is through film. I have watched many of these films, including “Jakob the Liar”, “Schindler’s List” and “Sophie’s Choice”, but the most poignant for me is “Life Is Beautiful”, directed by the Italian comedian Roberto Benigni. The first half of the film is a romantic comedy about how Benigni’s character, a Jewish bookkeeper, falls in love with and marries an Italian woman in the 1930s. They then have a son, and Benigni’s character and his son get sent to a concentration camp. To protect his son, he pretends that the camp is a game and that the prize is winning a tank. I am unsure whether my children are quite ready to watch the film, but I would use it to introduce to them what the horror of the holocaust means, because it is the most human and poignant telling of the holocaust that I have seen.
The holocaust has deeply affected my family. My parents were born in 1946, and I remember sitting in my great-aunt’s kitchen in Tel Aviv as a young child, seeing the numbers tattooed on her arm and asking my father, “Why?” She was in the camps. She did not have her own children or grandchildren. I had no aunts or uncles or cousins to play with, because the Nazis experimented on her and she could not have children. This hollow shell cast a dark spectre over my family—all the relatives I never met or who never survived, and the children they never had.
That is my living memory of what happened, and it is seared into me when I make my own political judgments or when I make decisions about the genocide happening now to the Rohingya or the Yazidis, or elsewhere around the world. It also happens when I think about decisions more locally. We sit in a place of tolerance and pluralism. We call those on the other side of the House “hon. Members”, and they are our opponents, not our enemies. We should be grateful for our democracy and for how this place operates. We need that same political culture everywhere: in our parties, on the streets, in our schools, and in our workplaces.
Every day, I try to work with that memory of my family and the dark spectre of the holocaust. I try to take that into all my experiences and all my dealings with people. I try to be tolerant towards them, but when intolerance comes and they have a message of hate, I try to face it down and stand up to it by saying, “I do not accept what you have to say. You are wrong.” I first try to educate, but then I try to use the power of the state and the power we have to ensure that those people do not come forward. We sit beneath the plaque to Jo Cox and remember that she was struck down by these same people on the far right. It is our duty here in this place, and the duty of everyone in this country, to stand up for tolerance and pluralism and to act against intolerance and extremism.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing this debate and congratulate everyone who has taken part on their powerful and moving speeches. It is an honour to take part in this debate in remembrance of an event that, in its own way, challenges the power of words adequately to express the horror and sorrow of the holocaust.
Three years ago, I visited the Yad Vashem memorial in Israel. As I was taken around that remarkable monument, the experience was at times emotional, as well as inspiring and thought-provoking throughout. It is a dark, oppressive space—a tunnel in a hillside—and as we travelled through it, guided as we were by a holocaust survivor, the personal testimonies we heard and the things we saw represented to me one of the bleakest periods in modern history—indeed, human history.
When our tour focused on the concentration camps, my mind was flooded with thoughts of the survivors I have been privileged to meet as we heard the testimonies of the suffering. I also thought about the young people I know who have visited what remains of the concentration camps across Europe, and about their reactions.
My daughter, who was born more than half a century after the war ended, visited because she felt she had to but, unlike other places of historical importance she has visited, it is something she rarely talks about. Like many, we took her as a child to Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam, and she was fascinated. When we came home, she fell in love with the words of that youngster who lived her life hidden because it was the only life she was allowed. Hers were informative, moving words.
When my daughter has visited other memorials, she has talked about them, but not when she came home from visiting Theresienstadt, which represented something more. She faced up to the fact that it was all real; that this was where so many stories, like that of the little girl living in a loft whose powerful words she had fallen in love with, had ended; and that if that horror were ever to return, many of the people she loved would meet the same fate. Perhaps it was a similar feeling that moved Andrew Dismore on his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and we should thank that visit for enabling us to dedicate a day to holocaust remembrance, but how do we adequately remember an event when its sheer horror challenges everything we want to believe about humanity and ourselves? How?
Perhaps Yad Vashem points the way. It is a tunnel in a hillside through which visitors proceed. In near darkness, they hear and see the emotionally numbing truth and heartbreak of the holocaust, but then, like all tunnels, the light at the end begins to grow until they emerge into the sunlight—it is a completely apt and quite deliberate metaphor.
In remembering the holocaust, we should take that metaphor to our hearts and remember that, unlike the many millions who hid in darkness or died in the bleakest of circumstances, and unlike the many victims of war and genocide in the past and in the current day—like those in Srebrenica and the Rohingya—we live in the sunlight. We should cherish that, and we should think of them every day that we enjoy it.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who spoke so movingly. I do not think anybody in this House can fail to have been moved by his personal testimony, so I thank him for that. I also thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank the Holocaust Educational Trust for the work it does in ensuring that as many people as possible, from every background in the UK, are aware of the holocaust and particularly of its contemporary relevance.
The HET has shared some amazing pieces of writing from survivors and victims, which really show the theme of this year: the power of words. One poem that particularly struck me was written by a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Avram Schaufeld. He wrote:
“Do not ask
How did you survive?
Because this is a question that causes me pain
and brings back memories…
I know that you mean well and are sympathetic
and would like me to talk to your youth group
or your son who is writing a paper on the Holocaust
and I could help him with this subject which is part of his exams
You add with a smile, that no amount of reading is the same
as talking to a survivor
From your eager expression I can guess
what you expect me to tell him
About our bravery and how our faith in God
helped us to survive…
I lie and say that I am too busy
that I have other commitments
and quickly take my leave and turn away
so that you cannot see the hurt in my eyes
Do not ask me why”.
Avram Schaufeld was the only member of his family to survive the holocaust. His poem addresses the theme of words from a rather different perspective and articulates his understandable reluctance to talk about the horrors of his past. But each year there are fewer and fewer survivors of the holocaust, and we must be grateful to all those who have gifted us their memories and testimonies—their words live on.
In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton, we will be gathering together on the evening of Monday 29 January at Heywood civic centre for a commemoration service to remember victims and survivors of the holocaust, Nazi persecutions and other worldwide genocides. This event has been organised by Rochdale Multi-faith Partnership, whose stated aim is to challenge religious prejudice and misconceptions, to promote justice and cohesion, and, recognising the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day—the power of words—to encourage open and respectful dialogue. In the borough of Rochdale, where there are sadly some who seek to divide our diverse communities, I cannot overstate the fantastic work done by Rochdale Multi-faith Partnership in bringing communities together in a spirit of mutual understanding, including those of no faith. I am hoping to attend the ceremony myself, but I will be subject to the power of the words from the Whips Office on that particular date.
In conclusion, we must never forget the lessons from this horrific part of recent history. Only today we heard in this Chamber about a report on the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh and Burma, and we must redouble our efforts to end this humanitarian crisis, which has been described by the UN as a “textbook” case of “ethnic cleansing”. We must all remember the lessons of the holocaust and never forget that evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on bringing this debate to the Floor of this House. As is well known, I am a strong supporter of Israel, as others are. I believe in the nation of Israel and support it. Today, I stand, as others have, in solidarity with those from all over Europe who were culled like the lowest of animals due to their belief and because a regime could not tolerate the ideal of freedom of religious belief for anyone.
I congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members who have given fantastic speeches and made a terrific contribution to today’s debate. I have spoken every year in this Chamber on this topic and as long as God spares me, I will always take the time to remember and mourn the holocaust.
I recently watched a snippet of a programme, one that many people are probably aware of as it has been making the rounds on Facebook. It showed when Sir Nicholas Winton, who rescued 669 children from Nazi death camps, was honoured and was in a room with many of the children he had saved—they were now adults with their own children. Those who have seen the programme will know what I am going to say. Those people were alive because of the sacrifices and decisions that Nicholas Winton took. It was hard not to be moved by the 104-year-old Nicholas Winton giving an interview and making a life-changing statement when he was asked what made him think that he could save lives. His answer was simple:
“I work on the motto that if something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it”.
It was simple for him, but he did a great thing.
Ruth Smeeth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking about Nicholas Winton. Last year, we celebrated, and in fact made a film about, the children who survived and were brought to Stoke-on-Trent because of Nicholas Winton. Those children had no connection at all to our city, but have gone on to be huge ambassadors for it and for our country. That should be applauded at every opportunity.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her pertinent, honest and personal words. I am fortunate that in my constituency we have Kindertransport children, who were saved by those who took the time to bring them across. There is a farm in Millisle known as McGill’s farm, which is where the young children who came over during the second world war stayed. Some of them stayed and never went home: they came from Germany to Millisle in my constituency, where there were people who loved them and looked after them.
I long to see a generation of Nicholas Wintons reaching out from the UK again, making a difference to the world and leaving a legacy of hard work and moral character for later generations. As I watched that short snippet, it was hard not to get emotional because the next generation of children, including my own granddaughters, will not get to see these kinds of stories at first hand. Others have referred to how important it is that we record these stories and have this event every year, so that we can commemorate the holocaust, remember those who were murdered and think of those who survived. It is also important to remember that many of those who survived are now no longer here.
The sight of an actual lady in that programme thanking Sir Nicholas is something that is now imprinted in my memory, and in the memories of many others. It is sometimes easy to watch a film and see the Hollywood slant. It makes it very real but also slightly deadens us to the emotional fact. Seeing the faces of those who managed to survive the camps but knowing that 6 million did not makes it very real. As that realisation sank in, so did the realisation that now more than ever we must make a concerted effort to teach our children not just the figures—it is not only about the 6 million figure, which is horrific and shocking enough—but that these were lives lost, that an entire nation was slaughtered, that a people were forever wounded and that this was an atrocity that can never be allowed to happen again. We need to reaffirm our desire never to see that atrocity repeated by ensuring that all schools throughout the nation do not simply pay lip service to the holocaust by teaching numbers and that children see real-life stories and understand the human cost, as I believe they have. The stories of how humanity sank so low must be clear to ensure that we never sink so low again.
I wish to use again the phrase used by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)— just because it is oft repeated, that does not mean it is of any less value. I am a firm believer that evil triumphs when good people do nothing. That belief comes from the holocaust and is emphasised by the poem by Niemöller:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Quite simply, we have to speak out for those who cannot.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a true privilege to speak in this debate. I send my compliments to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing it and to the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it. It was a true privilege to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). In listening to his speech, we were privileged to experience the power of words. That power is hugely important.
I had a marvellously prepared speech, but I am going to cast it to one side. As a primary school teacher, it was a privilege to talk to children and to be there when they discovered new things and new facts. It has been a huge privilege this week to send out to the schools in East Lothian the Holocaust Memorial Day packs provided by the trust.
I wish to share my experience of coming to understand about the holocaust. I had the luck and, again, the privilege of listening to a survivor when I was at school. I remember us all sitting around in the hall when this lovely lady came in. She seemed terribly old and terribly far away, but her opening words were, “I was at school.” Suddenly, she had us all—there may have been 70 of us in the hall—in the palm of her hand. She shared with us an experience that she wished we would never have, and she shared with us an experience that has stayed with me ever since. The word “privilege” gets used a lot, but it was a great privilege to listen to a survivor.
I wish to extend my compliments to the ambassadors as they take over from those who are living now and who have experienced what happened. They will take the experience forward and spread it out.
Social media is a great, great tool in the hands of the right people, but, unfortunately, it is used sometimes for truly horrendous things. I would like to take this opportunity, in thinking of the power of words, to say that we who have the power of words must point out what happened to those people who are still to learn about the holocaust and to those people who are learning empathy through listening and understanding about what happened. We must also hold out against those people who want to misrepresent what happened, those people who have forgotten the important lessons of history and those individuals who just deny what history so clearly tells us. We must not forget. The importance of this day and the importance of this debate rests with us and in doing that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), in his absolutely powerful and moving speech, made reference to films. There is another—Steven Spielberg’s fantastic work “Shoah” in which survivors living at the time all gave their testimony, speaking in their own words for the record. Hopefully, those words will be there for generations to come.
Twenty-one years ago, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on holocaust denial. It was a precursor to a private Member’s Bill on Holocaust Memorial Day promoted by my former hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who came in in 1997. We did not get the Bill on denial, but we did get the Bill on memorial. I received an incredible amount of anti-Semitic abuse. For two years after, I received specially printed Christmas cards with the most vile images. The assumption was that I was Jewish. Actually, I am not; I grew up in Ilford and the mum of one of my best friends at school always thought that I was Jewish because I was always round there, but I am not.
Interestingly, after the election in 1997, I decided that I was going to do more about these issues. Then a group was established locally that campaigned against me because I supported a two-state position in the middle east. The group, which called itself the Association of Ilford Muslims—I do not have the time now, but I refer Members to my Westminster Hall debate that I held in June 2001—put out leaflets saying that I was no friend of the Muslims, I was a true friend of Israel, and I represented Tel Aviv South, not Ilford South. Subsequently, the Muslim Political Action Committee UK was set up. It has peddled on the internet and through social media anti-Semitic material, which it dresses up as anti-Zionism. It has targeted people in election campaigns, including in Rochdale, Oldham, Birmingham, Blackburn, in my constituency and elsewhere to try to get rid of people it regards as pro-Zionist MPs—mainly Labour MPs, but Conservatives as well. That has been the power of their message. It is insidious, and it is in our politics.
I am very pleased to say that next Friday in Ilford we are going to have all communities, as we always do—Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jews—
Mike Gapes
Valentines Park in Ilford, at the holocaust memorial garden, which was established on the initiative of the former council leader—still a Conservative councillor—Alan Weinberg. We will have our annual service there, and there will be young people from many different schools, including, as in recent years, young people from a Muslim school—the Al-Noor school. We have many different people from different faiths speaking, because that is Ilford today. A century ago, Ilford had a very large Jewish community, but now we have all the different faiths, and they come together.
It is important to recognise that the poison that was put out against me all those years ago did not succeed. I am still here. More importantly, the community has rejected extremists of that kind, but they are still there. They are out on Twitter. They are out on Facebook.
Ruth Smeeth
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for how much has changed locally. This debate is all about the power of education, and that has a huge impact in my constituency and across the country, which is why the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust is so important.
Mike Gapes
I absolutely agree. I had not been to Auschwitz before 2013, when I went with a group of young people from schools in the south of England—there were not people from my constituency on the day that I was available. Every year, young people from many of my local schools go there, and those young people come back and talk about their experience, and spread the message in our community.
In our modern, pluralistic, democratic society, we must never forget the events of the holocaust. We must also remember the more recent genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia and what happened to the Yazidis. As the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee pointed out in their recent reports, we also need to highlight the plight of the Rohingya today. We must stand together as a community and fight these evils.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this time and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing the debate. It is also an honour and a privilege to follow all the brilliant speeches we have heard today, especially that of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel).
I join others in paying tribute to Karen Pollock, the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, and its Lessons from Auschwitz project, which since 1999 has enabled over 30,000 students and teachers to see at first hand the horror and brutality and
“to clearly highlight what can happen if prejudice and racism become acceptable.”
The theme of this year’s memorial day is the power of words, to remind us that
“The Holocaust did not start in the gas chambers but with hate filled words.”
Those words did not suddenly spring into being at the inaugural Nuremberg rally or from the venomous pages of “Mein Kampf”. It must be acknowledged that words and discrimination directed against Jewish people have been around for centuries, if not millennia, across the entire European continent and beyond, affecting all sections of society, all religions and all forms of state. Indeed, George Orwell noted in his essay on anti-Semitism:
“There has been a perceptible antisemitic strain in English literature from Chaucer onwards, and without even getting up from this table to consult a book I can think of passages which if written now would be stigmatised as antisemitism, in the works of Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and various others.”
While there can be no doubt that it is the Nazi leaders and those who carried out their orders who bear sole responsibility for the holocaust, their actions and beliefs were made easier to implement and for to others to subscribe to as a result of the norms and values that had been constructed over a long period, and eventually found fertile ground in 1920s Germany, in the toxic world of the Nazi party and those who carried out the work on their behalf. In the words of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who delivered an excellent speech during the debate in 2016,
“we should never avert our eyes from the most uncomfortable truth of all—that its perpetrators were not unique. They were ordinary men and women carrying out acts of extraordinary evil”—[Official Report, 21 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1635.]
The actions that the Nazis carried out may be beyond comprehension, but we can never be complacent or try to pretend that such actions took place in a vacuum and had no precedent. As the Jewish Italian writer and chemist Primo Levi, himself a survivor of Auschwitz, put it:
“We cannot understand”
fascism,
“but we can and must understand from where it springs, and we must be on our guard...because what happened can happen again... For this reason, it is everyone’s duty to reflect on what happened.”
When Barack Obama visited Yad Vashem in 2008, a few months before the presidential election, his note in the guestbook read:
“At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man's potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world. Let our children come here, and know this history, so that they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims, but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit.”
Former President Obama chose his words carefully, as must we all in politics around the world, so as not to allow this extremism to permeate again.
We must acknowledge the sad reality that a few decades hence there will be no one left who is able to offer a first-hand account of their experience of the holocaust. That is why the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust is so important—for example, in organising the event in Speaker’s House on Tuesday, or the football match between MPs and family members of survivors that took place last week. In that match, MPs, including me, played against—and lost to—Darren and Robert Richman, grandsons of Zigi Shipper, who when he was just 14 was taken from the Łódź ghetto to Auschwitz. Many who travelled with Zigi were murdered within an hour of arriving. He survived Auschwitz and was liberated by the British Army after a death march to Neustadt.
Also playing was Justin Spiro, the grandson of Harry Spiro. Like Zigi, Harry was just a boy when he was forced to work in a glass factory in the Piotrków ghetto. In 1942, the Nazis announced that all those working in the factory should attend work and everyone else should stay in their homes. Harry’s family and 22,000 other people in the ghetto were taken to Treblinka extermination camp, where they were murdered. Harry was eventually liberated by the Soviets and came to Britain as part of the group of youngsters who were later known as “The Boys”. I wish I could say more about some of the other survivors’ stories that were shared with us at the football match.
I quoted George Orwell’s comment on the history of anti-Semitism in fiction, but literature and art in general can play a more positive role in the world by portraying and expressing the personal experience, emotion and impact of real-world events in a way that is not always fully revealed by statistics alone, regardless of how extreme those events may be. I will finish with a quotation from novelist Vladimir Nabokov, who escaped to America with his Russian Jewish wife in May 1940, just prior to the Wehrmacht’s arrival in Paris, where they had been living at the time, and whose own brother would later perish in a Nazi concentration camp. In one of his novels, written just over a decade later, the central character reflects on his former lover, whose death in the holocaust he has just been reminded of when he is asked by another character if he had heard about her “terrible end”. The central character reflects that he had not thought about her until that moment
“because one could not live with the thought that this graceful, fragile, tender young woman with those eyes, that smile, those gardens and snows in the background, had been brought in a cattle car and killed by an injection of phenol into the heart, into the gentle heart one had heard beating under one’s lips in the dusk of the past.”
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is indeed a privilege to speak in this debate, because I believe it shows the best of this House when we come together in a common cause. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing the debate and for his powerful speech, and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their powerful contributions. I am sorry that I do not have the time to pay tribute to all those who have spoken, but I must mention my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who did indeed demonstrate the power of words, however difficult it must have been for him to share that story. I am so pleased that, with all-party support, this debate is a fixture in the calendar. It is not, however, just a fixture or something we do by rote; it is there to remind us of the horrors of the past and for us to look forward to the future. Sadly, this year, it is needed more than ever.
The power of words in this place is well recognised—sometimes, too many words—so it is an appropriate theme for Holocaust Memorial Day. I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust for all its work and for deciding on this as its theme. I have visited Dachau and I have visited the Washington Holocaust museum, and it is ironic that words could not describe the experience we had going round them. I have never been to a place where there was complete silence as people viewed and experienced everything there. That was particularly the case in Washington, where visitors are given a card with a name on, and when they come out at the end they are told whether they have survived—and, sadly, nearly everyone does not survive the experience. It took a good 10 minutes for us even to speak after that experience.
We are grateful to the survivors because they speak about their experiences and, however hard it is for them to do so, they tell us what it was like for them and their families. They are not just nameless and faceless victims, and they are not just 6 million; they are people with families—they were brothers, sisters, mums, dads. In a time with fewer survivors, we have to ensure that their words and their experiences live on and are communicated to future generations. As Anne Frank wrote, the words in her diary were a way of living on; she did not know that they would be her only way of living on.
We have to remember that words can be a force for good as well as a force for evil. Sadly, on this Holocaust Memorial Day, we are reminded that anti-Semitism and hate speech are no longer just in the past. As a child, I was told, as I am sure many people were told, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” but words do hurt: they are the start of hurting people. They are the start of stereotyping, name calling and vilification, which dehumanises people. Sadly, this is still happening today, possibly facilitated by social media, which allows people to say things anonymously that they would never say to somebody’s face.
I am very sorry that colleagues and others on both sides of the House have suffered some of this vilification. They should report it, and it the duty of all of us to support them if they are suffering from this vilification. It is our duty to call out, and to support others in calling out, anti-Semitism and hate speech wherever it is found. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, we cannot stand idly by. To stand idly by is to give tacit support to those who hate. Holocaust Memorial Day is not just to look back on a period of history; it is to reflect on how this happened. It is to reflect on how ordinary people were divided against each other and could commit dreadful atrocities on another human being, because words had told them that those others were not human beings, that they were a different race and culture and that that was bad. Such things are not bad: differences should be celebrated, not vilified. It is our duty to show that we can reflect and look forward and to demonstrate by our actions and our words that we will not stand idly and silently by.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for securing this vital debate. I am honoured that this will be my first speech from the Dispatch Box. I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words, and I hope that I am able to offer the House even half the eloquence with which he spoke this time last year and earlier this afternoon. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue): it has been a privilege to hear hon. Members from across the House make powerful and—especially in the case of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel)—very personal contributions to this debate.
This year the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is the power of words, and that has been demonstrated perfectly in the Chamber today. Like many others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) shared moving stories from their constituents. As the last of those who survived the holocaust are lost to us, the weight of those words, stories and memories only becomes greater. My young daughters’ generation will not have the privilege of hearing about the horrors of the holocaust from those who lived through it, and the task falls to us, and to the young ambassadors mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), to keep alive the terrible lessons that the holocaust teaches. We must remind a new generation of where the road of prejudice, hatred and dictatorship ultimately leads.
In truth, the words so often associated with the holocaust —“never again”—have too often proved false. Whether in the tragedies of Srebrenica or Rwanda, the violence that stems from prejudice has never truly left us. Sadly, as we heard today, that prejudice is still prevalent. A comprehensive survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research concluded that 30% of the UK population hold one or more anti-Semitic attitudes—30%. Anti-Semitic incidents recorded by the Community Security Trust rose by 30% in the first half of last year, to their highest level since the trust began collecting records in 1984.
The truth that the holocaust teaches us is that the fight against anti-Semitism, racism and religious intolerance never truly ends. Every generation must fight it again, and every generation must choose between a common humanity, which is the shared inheritance of all, and the narrow bigotry that sees some as more human than others.
Ian Paisley
Does the Minister consider that it would be beneficial to reach out to those young ambassadors and lay on a special reception for them, either at Downing Street or here in Parliament, so that they can be inspired and know that they can go out and advocate with courage, strength, humility and power the words that are necessary to convey this important memory to the next generation? I am talking about people such as Keri Bickerstaff of Bloomfield Collegiate School, and other young women and men who have decided to become ambassadors for this cause.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point which I will consider and take up with the right people in my Department and others.
The holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers; it began in the minds of ordinary people—people who, spurred on by Nazi propaganda, allowed spoken words slowly to erode the value of Jewish lives. The story is always the same. From so-called “class enemies” in Cambodia, to the so-called “cockroaches” in Rwanda, the terrible power of words is all too clear.
Education is crucial to fighting prejudice, and I note that many Members of the House have powerful memories of their visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau. For that we must of course thank Karen Pollock, the CEO of the Holocaust Educational Trust, who along with her team is an inspiration to us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly highlighted the trust’s new initiative to use the Lessons from Auschwitz programme to challenge anti-Semitism on university campuses, and the Government are proud to support that.
We must also pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and its chief executive officer, Olivia Marks-Woldman, who along with her team delivered the most successful Holocaust Memorial Day to date last year, with almost 8,000 local events. The Government are proud to support and work along these and many other commendable organisations.
It would be remiss of me not to mention a notable absence today, the Prime Minister’s post-Holocaust issues envoy, Sir Eric Pickles, whose passionate speeches those who have attended previous debates will no doubt recall fondly. Sir Eric was the driving force behind the Government’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism, making the UK the first country in the world to formally adopt the definition. As we have heard, the Government are also planning to build a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, a project that was kick-started with £50 million of funding.
I would like to end by paying tribute to those survivors honoured in the Queen’s new year’s honours list: men and women of enormous courage who have relived again and again their lives’ most painful memories so that we might all learn from them. It is both a great privilege and a responsibility to call such remarkable people our fellow citizens. Having listened to so many outstanding contributions here today, I believe that we remain a nation worthy of that honour and that we remain a Chamber that through our own words will never forget and will play our part in honouring these heroes’ stories.
Andrew Percy
I thank the three Front-Bench spokespersons, whose speeches were all excellent in their content, and pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the new Minister on his first outing at the Dispatch Box. He made a much better fist of it than I did last year, and will clearly last longer than I did in the job. I also thank other colleagues who have taken part in this debate.
This has been an incredible debate. It was great to hear the many testimonies of survivors themselves. We heard about Rudi Oppenheimer from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and about his constituent Oscar, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and we heard Edgar Guest’s story from the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), Ernest’s story from my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), and those of other survivors. We heard a lot about the role of young ambassadors, including from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), while my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) mentioned his constituent Joe Collins, who will shortly be attending York University, which I also attended—I hope he makes better career choices than I have made since graduating.
We also heard about the dangers of social media from the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and others and about how it was being used to spread hate and anti-Semitism. We heard from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about how people do not need to be Jewish to be on the receiving end of anti-Semitism. My first experience of anti-Semitism came in about 2010, after a trip to Israel. The contributions have been excellent this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) gave a rallying cry for us all to go out and fight anti-Semitism once again.
I will end where I started. Words are important. Anti-Semitism is a stain on humanity, society and our politics at the moment. We must all match our words with action, and that applies to all of us in this House, including those at the very highest levels of our political parties.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2018.
Musgrove Park Hospital Surgical Centre
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured this debate, which gives me the opportunity to bring Musgrove Park Hospital—located in Taunton and serving the whole county of Somerset—under the microscope. More particularly, I am focusing on the need to replace some of the oldest buildings, which are providing care to some of the most critically ill patients, with a brand-new £79.5 million surgical centre.
At the outset, I want to be clear that Musgrove Park Hospital is rated by the Care Quality Commission as good overall and as outstanding for care. That rating was announced following inspections in January 2016, and in August and September 2017. I particularly want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to all the hard-working and dedicated staff across the board at Musgrove and all those who link into it, because without them it would not be the place it is today. The hospital is very much respected locally.
I want to thank those who have inputted into and informed this speech, including the chief executive, Peter Lewis, and Dr Sam Barrel before him; Dr Stuart Walker, the chief medical officer; and Dr James Sidney. I also thank my London team, but particularly my parliamentary assistant, Katherine Toone, who is moving to pastures new, so this is very much her swansong. I also thank my Taunton team.
So why am I calling for a new theatre complex at Musgrove and supporting the bid that has recently been submitted to the NHS transformation body? Well, first, like so many people in my constituency, I have a personal link to the hospital. I have lived locally for almost 30 years, and Musgrove has seen my family through a lot. For example, all my three children were born there. The dramatic emergency operation I went through during the birth of my first child will remain in my mind forever but, thanks to the quick reactions of the staff and the professional team, all went well. In all the years that have followed, we, like so many other local families, have been in and out of that hospital for one reason or another, and that is still the case. There is always a personal link that people feel with their local hospital.
That first experience of the Musgrove Hospital’s operating theatre was 25 years ago. Today, the self-same operating theatres are being used, but even more poignant is the fact that five of the 14 theatres in the hospital have been in use not for 25 years, but for 70 years. They were built in the 1940s by the American forces based in Taunton as a temporary evacuation hospital for the D-day landings. They are still in constant use. They could almost qualify as a museum, but they are still functioning.
Members might therefore understand why a new complex that will house more up-to-date theatres and associated facilities is urgently needed. Basically, the current theatres are not fit for the demands now being placed on them, and that has been brought home to me following a number of tours of the premises. I have seen staff in the critical care unit having to work in the most cramped conditions imaginable—tiny, narrow corridors where it is tricky to manoeuvre equipment and move beds round. There is also an extreme lack of storage space—I could hardly get in, with all the stuff packed in there. The storage systems seem to have come out of the Ark—there are dank cupboards. It is also a constant juggling act to fit patients in, because there simply is not enough space, and there are not enough isolation rooms.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take you on to the roof, where I have literally been with the estates manager. Up here is located the unbelievably antiquated air conditioning unit, which is housed in what I can only describe as a deteriorating shack. It is so old that there are still notes from electricians on the walls about what they did last time. We do these things digitally now, but there are little scribbled pencil notes—it is historic. The sky is also showing through the crumbling wall at one end, and the hospital has difficulties with the insulation. This system alone is well past its sell-by date.
The report produced by the CQC following its recent inspection made reference to the environment in the surgery department. The report stated that the premises were not always suitable and noted that some operations were cancelled due to the air conditioning failing in the theatre environment.
Just clambering across the roof was quite a precarious process, criss-crossed as it is with a complex network of pipes. Members can imagine the wear and tear involved and the maintenance issues, especially when it is cold and snowy. In most modern hospitals, of course, such pipes would be enclosed.
The 1940s flat roof housing the five theatres at the heart of this debate is key to some of the problems. The roof is in constant need of repair to keep it watertight, which is costly and time consuming. I kid you not, Madam Deputy Speaker: rain water comes through the roof and into the ceilings below, and is often collected in buckets. A couple of years ago, I found myself witness to that as a patient, when I had to go in for an op. It was a dark and stormy day, and as I was wheeled along on the trolley, there were literally buckets collecting water in the corridors. I was a little alarmed. The next thing I knew, as I lay in the operating theatre waiting to go under, I was surrounded by masked figures, who were obviously quite well aware of who I was. In the nicest but firmest possible way, they drew my attention to the dire state of the fabric of the building and urged me to do something about it when I got out. And who could blame them for not taking advantage of that opportunity, pinned as I was to the slab, as they say?
Those people need not have worried—I thank them, by the way, for the great care I got—because it was already in my mind to try to help, because I had been made aware of the issue before my election and had determined that if I ever got to this place, I would try to do something about it. I raised it with the then—and thankfully current—Secretary of State when he came to Taunton Deane before my election in 2015. I have broached the subject with him many times since arriving here, so I know it is on his radar, and I hope it will also be on the radar of the Minister, whom I thank for his interest so far.
I reiterate that, despite the challenges presented by the fabric of the buildings, Musgrove continues to deliver the best possible care. Recent figures from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre show that mortality rates in Musgrove’s intensive treatment unit are the lowest among 20 similar units throughout the UK, so we do not want to worry people on that score. However, I stress that the buildings I am highlighting today were never intended to provide modern and complex hospital care, and they certainly were not intended to cope with the throughput that the hospital faces. Moreover, the critical care section is where the most seriously ill patients are treated, and it includes the operating theatres, where patients undergo a range of operations—general surgery for the local population, as well as more specialist surgery for a much wider population.
The current facilities simply cannot provide the support required for the provision of 21st-century healthcare, and demands are ever-increasing, as I am sure the Minister knows, especially in a county such as Somerset, given our elderly population. The baby boomers are hitting their 70s and, with Somerset being such a glorious county, people choose to retire there. Although they are welcome, the influx puts even more pressure on our health services. It is a tribute to our health service that on average people can look forward to a longer life, but that brings with it more complex medical issues, and that puts more pressure on our theatres.
Musgrove, by the way, does not draw its clientele, if I can call them that, just from the county. Owing to the high level of expertise it has developed—this is a great accolade to the hospital—Musgrove has acquired strategic importance to healthcare in the wider south-west. People come from much further afield for its specialist services. For example, vascular surgery patients regularly travel quite long distances for treatment at Musgrove.
I want to give a few numbers. The trust undertakes approximately 4,000 operations a year, and that figure is growing by 5% each year. As demand escalates, the trust is struggling to keep up. That is already having the unfortunate consequence that many residents of Taunton Deane and further afield are inevitably experiencing longer waiting times, with patients having to be transferred to other providers where possible. Having spoken to many people who have used Musgrove, I know how inconvenient and upsetting it is when people cannot go to their local hospital and suddenly have to transfer much further afield, away from friends and relatives, who find it hard to visit. That adds a lot more stress to the whole situation.
Let me turn to the practicalities. The call for a new theatre complex is not just based on demand. There are real practical limitations to the current system that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, that can result in the patient experience being compromised—which, I must continue to add, in no way reflects on the staff.
Musgrove currently has the highest bed occupancy in the south-west. Most of the time the rate is 90%, and best practice is generally recognised as about 70%. In the critical care unit there are 12 beds: six in the high-dependency unit, which is close to the intensive care unit; and six in intensive care. What is needed, and what is in the bid, is capacity for 22 beds: 18 at levels 2 and 3 —level 3 being for those who require the most care—and four at level 1. The idea is to make them flexible, so that they can be swapped from one level to the other when necessary, which cannot be done at present and which would really help. That is almost double the current capacity, which illustrates just what the hospital has been up against.
At present, bed numbers and space are the limiting factor when it comes to the number of people who can be treated, which I would suggest is pretty unacceptable. As demand for critical care capacity grows, more patients are inevitably in the undesirable position of having major surgery cancelled because the trust cannot guarantee access to a critical care bed following their procedure. For the staff, trying to sort out the bed space is a constant juggling act that must put unnecessary strain on their already pressurised daily lives. I have talked to them, and while they are awfully nice about it, I know that they are under a lot of pressure.
The new plan also encompasses new facilities for the endoscopy unit. The current premises are outdated and unacceptable. This is a very hard-working department, of which I have had a great deal of experience when family members have had to use it. The unit does not comply with current regulatory healthcare environmental standards, and it does not have the capacity to cope with the existing demands of the diagnostic screening programme, let alone the future growth that we are likely to see. It is great that more people are being called for screening—we are always talking about such things in Parliament—as early diagnosis tends to lead to better outcomes, but that is of no use if the system cannot cope. The crux of the matter is that the long-term sustainability of the complex, providing emergency surgical care, diagnostic screening services and critical care in Somerset, now depends entirely on the replacement of an outdated estate that is no longer fit for purpose—so no pressure there for the Minister!
Bearing in mind the stark reality of the pressing situation which I hope I have made clear, Musgrove Park has submitted its outline business case for a new £79.5 million phase 2 surgical centre to the NHS transformation body for consideration. I believe that the timing is right. It coincides with the welcome announcement in the autumn budget of £3.5 billion of capital funding for just such projects, which will enable NHS organisations to deliver on their transformation schemes, helping to meet demands for local services, to deliver more integrated care for patients and to reduce waiting times. Other sites have already been redeveloped across the Musgrove estate and are working well.
The proposed new complex would go a long way towards bringing the entire site up to date. The new surgical centre would be placed in a more central location on the hospital site and would optimise proximity to other clinical services. It would consist of six endoscopy rooms, patient recovery and clinical support areas, eight operating theatres—including two interventional radiology theatres—clinical support and the 22 critical care beds that I mentioned earlier, all specified for the various levels of care. Those new facilities would allow a better patient experience and more efficient working, and would provide sufficient capacity to sustain services. That would have a positive impact on the health and care system in Somerset and beyond.
There is another reason why the redevelopment is so important, which has been mentioned to me a number of times in the hospital. A spanking, brand-new, state-of-the-art facility would boost morale. It would also help to improve recruitment prospects. I know it is hard to believe, but it is quite tricky to attract bright young talent to Taunton—that beautiful glorious rural area. If we had this wonderful new facility, I think talented young people would be rushing to take up our jobs, and they would be welcomed. I have spoken to the Secretary of State about this issue and the issue of attracting GPs as well, and he thoroughly understands it, so I hope that that will also be considered in assessing the bid.
I hope I have outlined a clear case for the need for a new surgical centre at Musgrove. In allocating funds, value for money to the taxpayer is also extremely important. Extensive studies have illustrated this. The Minister might say, “Why don’t you just improve the outdated facilities that are there?” But that simply does cut the mustard. Those facilities would not provide a long-term sustainable solution, and they would present very poor value for money. Money spent on basic refurbishment of the existing life-expired facilities cannot address the capacity constraints and would not enable compliance with current standards of healthcare provision or improve the patient experience. Consideration of the Somerset sustainable transformation plan relating to a range of options for sustaining these services for the long term has concluded that the best option is to re-provide the services in a new, modern, high-quality, adaptable building that can meet the needs of patients as medicine and healthcare make further advances.
So, not to put too stark a point on it, Minister, if these facilities are not updated, there is a risk of critical infrastructure failing. Those are strong words and they are not mine: they come from Musgrove Park. The risk of this occurring would be all but eliminated, together with the threat it might pose to the continuity of services to the patients of Somerset, if the new centre were built. Modern facilities will also provide a better patient experience, enable more efficient working and provide sufficient capacity to sustain services, with a positive impact for the Somerset care system.
Minister, the good people of Somerset have waited for far too long for this facility and the staff have soldiered on in less than desirable conditions for far too long. This is the only hospital in the south-west not to have such an upgrade. Should the bid be successful—which I sincerely hope it will be for the myriad reasons I have outlined—this project must be started with some urgency because it could take five to six years and that would mean it would not be ready for use until 2023 at the earliest. Therefore, speed is of the essence and that would be most appreciated.
I am sure that the Minister, and Madam Deputy Speaker, will agree that this is a most deserving case for the £80 million—just £80 million—of the £3.5 billion that this Government have earmarked, which we so welcome, for such projects. The money could not be better spent and the impact could not be greater. The sooner the new surgical centre is started, the sooner it will be finished and the sooner the deserving people of Taunton, and indeed the whole of Somerset and the wider south-west, will be able to start benefiting from it.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Stephen Barclay)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing this debate, and I am pleased to be able to join her in discussing a matter of great importance to both her constituency and her family. She powerfully set out her personal links with Musgrove Park and its importance to the community as a whole.
The Government recognise the real concerns—which the House got a full flavour of—about Musgrove Park and we are working to address the concerns that my hon. Friend set out. The hospital’s theatres and critical care facilities are housed in pre-war buildings that are at risk of critical infrastructure failure because of their age and condition, and she gave us a clear sense of the urgency of the need to respond to that.
It is clearly crucial that NHS facilities are as well maintained and up to date as possible. In this case, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that decisions should be driven by what is best clinically, what is best for the health service in the area, and what is of most benefit to the greatest number of people in the area. It is right that we address these matters at a level where the local healthcare needs are best assessed, rather than doing so solely in Whitehall.
The Government recognise that Musgrove Park Hospital’s theatres and critical care facilities need to be improved significantly, but that due to the foundation trust’s financial position it is unable to fund the improvements itself. The trust has therefore proposed to invest £79.6 million in the development of modern, fit-for-purpose operating theatres, a critical care unit and an endoscopy unit. The trust is bidding for funds made available through the sustainability and transformation plan capital bidding process.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust was informed that it was unsuccessful in its application under the wave 2 capital bidding process, but perhaps it will be encouraged by the fact that it was asked to develop a case with a view to submitting another bid under the wave 3 process, which is now under way. The latest bid submission process was announced in late December 2017 and closes on 31 January. The trust is being supported by the regional NHS Improvement team to ensure that it submits a comprehensive bid.
The Somerset clinical commissioning group has given its highest priority to the redevelopment of the surgical block at Taunton’s Musgrove Park Hospital. Running in parallel to the process for securing funding, the NHS Improvement regional team is supporting the trust to develop the business cases required for the development of the surgical facilities. I am pleased to learn that Musgrove Park Hospital’s surgical block capital bid has now been submitted and has received support, in principle, from NHS England and NHS Improvement, and will be considered for the next round of announcements for capital. Should its bid be successful, money will then be made available to start work on a new surgical centre at Musgrove Park Hospital. I join my hon. Friend in recognising that lead times for construction work are often very long. That is an area that I am keen for the Department to focus its attention on.
On the long-term plans for Somerset hospitals, the Somerset CCG is developing a clinical services review that will consider the views of patients before developing a series of service proposals with the aim of ensuring that family doctors and community hospital and district hospital services are joined up with social care services to provide financially sustainable and high-quality care. I know that my hon. Friend shares the Government’s desire to ensure that we take a more integrated approach to commissioning our services.
The Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust was rated as good by the Care Quality Commission in its December 2017 report. That is a tribute to the staff working there. It was rated as outstanding for caring, and rated as good for being effective, responsive and well-led. Surgical services are rated as good overall, having been rated as requiring improvement in the previous report. This followed action being taken to address and resolve issues with theatre safety and surgical site infections. NHS Improvement has no significant clinical quality concerns, and there have been no recent theatre or estate-related significant incidents. However, the latest CQC report mentioned that inspectors had heard of operations being cancelled due to the theatre environment and the air conditioning issues that my hon. Friend mentioned. This highlights the need for improved surgical facilities.
In closing, I recognise that Musgrove Park Hospital’s theatres and critical care facilities require significant improvement, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the manner in which she set out such a powerful case for that improvement. Somerset clinical commissioning group has given its highest priority to the redevelopment of the surgical block at Taunton’s Musgrove Park Hospital. I am pleased to learn that the hospital’s surgical block capital bid has been submitted and has received support, in principle, from both NHS England and NHS Improvement. Should the bid be successful, money will then be made available to start work on a new surgical centre at Musgrove Park Hospital. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that decisions should be driven locally, and I know that she is particularly focused on that.
In securing this Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend, as she so often does, has put the case for Taunton Deane. As the Minister responsible, I recognise the importance of the issue both to her and to the community, and I look forward to continued discussions with her as we seek to progress the situation and ensure the best possible care for Taunton Deane and the surrounding area.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
BAE Systems jobs in Brough
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Supported Housing
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Joint Report of the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee, Future of supported housing, HC 867, Session 2016-17, and the Government response, Cm 9522.
It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate. I welcome the Minister to her place. This is her first opportunity to respond to a debate on the issue, and we look forward to her customary approach to local government matters—I am getting in early before she is taken over by her civil servants and told what to do. She certainly has a long track record with local government matters, having been a councillor, chair of the all-party group on local government and a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government.
I also place on record the Committee’s thanks to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who appeared before us to answer questions on supported housing and, more recently, on homelessness. He certainly listened to the Committee on many occasions and responded positively to us; I will say a little more in due course about how positive his response was to our report. I used to tease him a little by saying that his primary job was trying to save the Department for Work and Pensions from itself when it ventured into housing matters and made policy that subsequently unravelled rather badly, having posed serious problems for much of the housing sector on the way.
The joint report is the result of our two Select Committees getting together to address this very important issue. Anyone who reads the Government response will see the wide range of accommodation that is covered by the term “supported housing”, from long-term traditional sheltered housing and extra care provision to what are essentially people’s homes—accommodation where people with learning or physical disabilities may live for long periods, or provision that people with mental health problems rely on. It also includes very short-term accommodation, often for homeless people who have nowhere else to go and need a roof over their heads, but who will eventually move on to more long-term accommodation. The report also covers the very important issue of how to provide accommodation for women fleeing domestic violence.
We probably would not be here this afternoon were it not for the Government’s intention to change the funding arrangements for such accommodation back in 2015 and 2016, and their now rather infamous decision to link payments to the local housing allowance. At least the Minister can relax this afternoon, because she does not have to defend the indefensible, unlike the Ministers who gave evidence to our inquiry. No one could begin to defend relating the costs of supported housing in any way to those of renting in the private sector, because the differences in local housing allowance rates were so extreme and bore no relation to the costs of providing supported housing in different parts of the country. At least we have got there now. At some point, the penny dropped for Ministers and civil servants and they extracted themselves from the impossible position that they had got into. That was certainly a great benefit of the inquiry. I pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who jointly chaired it, for putting Ministers on the spot and making them so uncomfortable that in the Government response they have extracted themselves from that impossible position.
I think I can see how it all came about. Someone in the Treasury must have said, “You mean you pay all this money to these housing providers—you just pay what they ask for? They ask for the rent, you pay over the housing benefit and there is not really any control. We need to anchor the payments to something or other, so let’s come up with a local housing allowance. That’ll do—it’ll provide an anchor so that the providers cannot simply write cheques to themselves.” I am sure that that is how we got into that position, but at least we are not there any more.
Let us not forget, however, that 85% of new development of supported housing in this country was put on hold. We wasted months—indeed, a couple of years—while nothing happened. Although we may be in a better place now than at the beginning, we have still had two years when, despite the urgent need for more supported housing in this country, nothing has happened on 85% of the schemes that were in train. Everyone has said, “Wait a minute. We can’t go ahead because of the uncertainty. We can’t borrow the money because of the uncertainty. We can’t develop the schemes that we all know are needed, because the Government got the initial proposals completely and absolutely wrong.” We should not forget that; indeed, it was worse than that. Organisations such as St Mungo’s that came to give evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee before the joint inquiry was set up said: “If this carries on, not only will we not develop new accommodation; we will pull out of what we have, because we cannot make it pay.”
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight St Mungo’s, which used to be based in my constituency and has done a lot of projects there. It is under a continuing threat: because there is still an intention to rely on local authority grants to fund short-term housing, there is not only insecurity but hostels will have to close.
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is an underlying problem. St Mungo’s representatives came to see me this morning and spoke on behalf of a number of providers about the difficulties that still exist, despite the Government’s proposals and the fact that we have got away from LHA rates, as a first move in the direction of sanity. At least that has been clarified, but we should not forget the problems that have occurred in the past two years.
I think the report is excellent. It deals with more than just funding issues; it looks at the role that local authorities play in provision in their area; at how to get people from supported housing into more permanent mainstream housing; and at enabling people to get into work while they are in supported housing. It includes a lot of good recommendations, but I will focus on three key funding issues. I would like some clarification and some certainty from the Minister about where things are going, at least in the medium term. I hope I can also persuade her to think again about two key issues in which the Government have not quite got to the right place.
The first issue is longer-term provision. To some extent, the Government response separates sheltered and extra care housing from long-term supported housing. I accept that slightly different regulatory regimes are proposed for those two sorts of housing, but in essence they will both be funded through the welfare system, as the Government response says. Their funding arrangements look similar, if not identical, so I shall address them together.
I think the Government response is helpful. It is an awful lot better than what we started with. It is clearly right, as we heard overwhelmingly in the evidence we received, that paying for supported housing should be linked to housing benefit, or to the housing element of universal credit when it comes in. What I want from the Minister is a little more explanation and clarification of the wording. The word “control” is used several times, including a reference to
“enhanced cost controls and oversight, ensuring value for money for the taxpayer”.
Of course, everyone recognises that the Government’s job is to ensure value for money for the taxpayer, but what does that phrase actually mean? Does it mean that in the future there will be an effort to bear down on the amount of housing benefit that is paid, to reduce the amount and say, “Well, we paid you the 100% that you requested for housing benefit last year, but next year it’s only going to be 95%, because we expect you to start squeezing the costs that are applicable to this scheme”? Who exercises the controls? Will there be a system with criteria, or will things simply be done on an ad hoc basis for individual schemes?
It would be really helpful in the cases of sheltered and extra care housing, and of long-term supported housing, for which slightly different regulatory regimes are being proposed, but necessarily the words “cost control” come into both of them, if some further explanation could be given about precisely how those cost controls will operate. Who will operate them? Will it be something that is done for three or four years ahead, or will it be something on an annual basis and, if so, how? Such an explanation would be helpful, not merely for our satisfaction here. We come back to this issue of long-term investment. We want more providers to come in with proposals, to get more places and more schemes, but they will only do that if they can satisfy the people they are borrowing money from that there is a long-term future for such schemes and that the money can be paid back. So it is absolutely crucial that we get that right. I am not making a criticism of the proposal as such; instead, I am seeking clarification about how these schemes will operate. So, can we have a bit more certainty about they will operate for the providers in the future? I think we are getting there; we are on the same page, but we want to be clearer about what longer-term arrangements are actually written on the page.
I will come on to something about which I think there is a more fundamental problem, which is the issue with short-term accommodation. I think the term itself causes some difficulties; the Government certainly have difficulties with it. Paragraph 19 of the “Conclusions and recommendations” in this excellent joint report says—I am sure that the Minister has read that paragraph several times already, but I will read it for her again—that
“The Government is right to consider an alternative funding mechanism for very short-term accommodation”.
I will stop reading there, because there is an important word in that sentence. It refers to “very” short-term accommodation. Paragraph 19 continues, “given the emergency nature”—again, those words are important—
“of that provision and the inability of Universal Credit to reflect short-term changes in circumstance.”
I think that that is a given; everyone knows that there have been problems with universal credit in the first few weeks. However, I do not think that anyone thinks that the problems with universal credit are likely to last for two years, do they? Do Ministers think that? Is that why the “short-term” arrangements last for two years under the Government’s proposals—because they do not think that universal credit can be sorted out in two years? I do not know. However, if the Minister thinks so, she is even more pessimistic about universal credit than most of the rest of us are. Anyway, that is the issue.
It was very clear when the two Committees produced their joint report on this subject that they were thinking of accommodation where people literally could not get their universal credit sorted out within a matter of days or very few weeks. I think the period of around 12 weeks is probably reasonable; I think that is the period that most providers are looking at. It is “emergency” accommodation—accommodation for people who have not got a roof over their head; they live there for a very short period. I think everyone accepts that that sort of accommodation needs a different funding model. The problem is that recommendation 19 is being used by Ministers to justify having a completely different funding model for any accommodation that is provided for up to two years, and there is no justification at all in the Government’s response as to why there is that sudden extension from what had been looked at as “very short-term”, “emergency” accommodation for up to 12 weeks to accommodation that is for up to two years.
People from St Mungo’s came to see me this morning and they spoke on behalf of the Riverside Foundation, YMCA and the Salvation Army, which provide around a quarter of so-called “short-term supported housing” units in this country. They said that that extension gives an element of uncertainty to their funding that really causes them major difficulties. St Mungo’s said that 98% of the accommodation it provides will be covered by this ring-fenced grant to local authorities, about which there is absolutely no certainty at all.
I raised the concerns about the need for more clarification and certainty about the long-term funding arrangements linked to housing benefit. However, I think that most providers think there is an awful lot more certainty about those arrangements than there is about some unspecified, ring-fenced grant that can be changed at the stroke of a Chancellor’s pen at any time in the future.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is making an excellent point about an excellent report. May I give him one example of where we need to see more short-term accommodation and where we need the certainty of the financial models that he is talking about? A lot of homeless people suffering from terminal illness have a right to accommodation, but when local authorities and others get together to provide that accommodation, it is exactly the sort of accommodation that he has been talking about. That accommodation, which is so needed in many communities, will not be provided unless this problem is sorted out.
Mr Betts
Yes, I think that is absolutely right and again we are back to the point that providers of new accommodation need some certainty, because when they go to borrowers the borrowers say, “Where is the funding stream for the future?”; borrowers want to see that funding stream. That is exactly what St Mungo’s is saying—it will not be able to raise the funds under this proposal that the Government are currently putting forward.
I do not really know why there has suddenly been this extension to two years. There is no justification for it, so I will just ask the Minister, who I accept is new in her post, to have a really good think about it. I know there is still some of the consultation period left—I think it extends next Tuesday—so there is time to rethink and get this right.
I also say to the Minister that this issue is not only about funding for the future but about the nature of the funding and what it says, because if the funding is related to the welfare system—to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit—essentially it is the accommodation of an individual that is funded. That individual has a relationship with the payment for their unit of accommodation. They are entitled to that accommodation, and they make a payment from their housing benefit or their element of universal credit for the cost of that accommodation. It is a tenancy relationship between the provider and the individual.
As part of the Government’s welfare reform to give responsibility to the individual in such circumstances, I would have thought that that tenancy relationship would have appealed to Ministers. However, the Government are now saying that, with a ring-fenced grant to local authorities, it will not be the individual who receives the money to pay—through the welfare system—for the rent on their property. It will actually be the institution that gets funded. So the Government are moving from an individual system, whereby money goes with the individual as part of their tenancy, to an institutional system, where the money goes to the institution itself.
Does that move fit in with the Government’s welfare reform agenda? It is difficult to see that it does. It is also difficult to see how we are moving towards a system of personal and individual responsibility, with individuals responsible for their own accommodation, when the Government are saying, completely counter to that, “We will have a new system where we actually fund the institution, which will mean that the individual will not be given a relationship with their accommodation and the money they pay towards it.”
Ministers have to think again about this issue. On both counts, the organisations and the providers are saying, “This really gives us so much uncertainty that we’re not comfortable, and our lenders are not comfortable. It will actually stop new provision in the future.” And we go back to the issue of the individual paying rent for their property and having that rent paid through the welfare system, as opposed to a ring-fenced grant for local authorities that institutionalises the whole system in a way that cuts off the tenant-landlord relationship. That is really quite important; I do not think that that element has really been thought through, because it really is quite important.
I will raise just one other issue, as I know lots of colleagues want to speak. Again, it is an issue that I do not think Ministers have really addressed, which is the refuges for women and children. The joint report makes a very sensible recommendation about having a “national network” of refuges. Basically, however, the Government’s response was, “It should all be done at local level”.
Generally I am a localist; I think the Minister knows that. I believe that local authorities by and large are best placed to make decisions for their areas. Local councillors living in the areas they represent know what is good for those areas better than Ministers sitting behind desks in Whitehall offices.
Women’s refuges are a different issue. By and large, supported housing deals with the problems, needs and accommodation requirements of people who live in an area, and in those cases it is right that they remain in that area and are accommodated and housed there. For women fleeing domestic violence, the situation is almost exactly the opposite. If anything, they want to get out of the area where that violence has occurred to somewhere completely different so that the perpetrator does not know where they are. It is important that we see the issue on a more national scale, so that we have places for people to go that are almost certainly not in the area where the violence has happened. I read the Government’s response, and I did not understand why they turned down our recommendation, because it seemed sensible. The recommendation was completely at odds with the rest of the report, in that the provision for that sort of circumstance is different from the other kinds of supported accommodation covered by the report. Will the Minister in her new position have a think about that?
There was overwhelming evidence to the Joint Committee on women’s refuges, but the Government said, “No, we think it is all better done at the local level.” There was no clear justification for turning the recommendation down and thinking it could all be done at the local level. Have they done any impact assessment of whether that would lead to the comprehensive network of provision that everyone wants to see?
I have raised three key issues to which I hope the Minister will respond. They are important if we are to get things right. In the end, getting the funding right means getting the provision in place and maintaining it, as well as ensuring that we get the appropriate new provision for the future.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma? This is the first debate I have contributed to with you in the Chair, and I very much hope it will not be the last. I note with pleasure how my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) opened the debate. The two Committees are fully signed up to much of what he said. I thank the members of the Committees for the work they did. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—he is my hon. Friend on many topics—for leading the Work and Pensions Committee in this joint endeavour. I hope he will keep a longer-term interest in the subject. I am so pleased to see the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), because he has had a long-term interest in the area, initiating debates and following things up in the Commons. All that work helps to create the tide of reform that we want.
I also welcome the Minister. Normally people say, “We hope Ministers come to their Departments with open and empty minds”, but I very much hope she is coming to this position with an open and full mind—she will be—because from her experience she knows the answers to many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. I hope the Minister clings on to that and educates her civil servants, rather than letting them do the job that they think they do so well of educating Ministers. Mr Sharma, I told you that I am chairing a roundtable in the House on modern slavery and so cannot be here for the whole debate, but I will return, I hope, to hear the Minister and the shadow Minister summing up our contributions.
I thank the Government for their movement in their response on sheltered rent on the key issue of how rents are paid in the longer term, for up to two years. Those rents will be met from state benefits, which is a real improvement. Mention has been made of at least three areas to which we would like the Minister to turn her full mind, both in this debate and in following through. The first area is the real concern about tenancies of from one month to two years. The money is ring-fenced at the moment, but what further guarantee can she give that there will be security of that funding, given that those commitments will outlast the lives of individual Governments? I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), on the commitment that the Opposition will make.
The second area is domestic violence refuges. If we stand back, we see that the Government’s response goes back to the Elizabethan Poor Law. They say that this is the responsibility of local government, but local authorities naturally feel that the councils from which families have come should be responsible for paying the bills. We all know that people escape their original parish, as the old Poor Law would have said, because it is not safe for them to reside in that parish. I underscore strongly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made: we need a national system of funding that can support a national network. It is fine to talk the talk and say that we are serious about giving people a safe haven from the violence inflicted on them, but we want Government action. The best way of establishing a national network would be through a national agreement on funding.
The final area, which, naturally, my hon. Friend also touched on, is payment for emergency temporary accommodation—or, as those of us who have grown old in the trade would call it, bed and breakfasts. The Committee heard from Neil Couling, the boss-person of universal credit, back in September. He said that this payment would be a locally administered housing benefit. Since then, there has been a wonderful quietness on that front. Why? I hope that the Minister, whatever stick she has for poking into places to stir people up, will give a commitment in this debate to going back to see why universal credit is not delivering on those three fronts.
I end by again thanking the members of both Committees for their work, and particularly the hon. Member for Gloucester for leading on the Department for Work and Pensions side in this incredibly successful report. It was successful in the sense of keeping us all together, and partially successful in the light of the Government response. In summing up, we hope that we will be able to record total success on all fronts.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I echo the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) in expressing my joy at serving under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Sharma, and at welcoming our new Minister, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler). As previous speakers mentioned, she brings to the role considerable experience, particularly of local government and how these things work or do not work.
I suspect that there will be a degree of similarity in some of the speeches, because the issues are relatively similar, although we will all have slightly different approaches to them. I am happy to echo the comments of my friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, about the Joint Select Committee report. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) played an educating role for me, coming as I did from the Department for Work and Pensions side. It was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead who talked me into taking up something outside the comfort zone of the Work and Pensions Committee’s normal remit. It was a fascinating experience.
In his introductory remarks, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) suggested that the aim of the Joint Select Committee’s report was to make the Government feel uncomfortable, but I am afraid that was not my objective at all. I felt that our job was to try to come up with solutions to what has been a pretty difficult issue for a long time. If one needed confirmation of that, there is the fact that among the emails that we received from various charities and lobbying groups was an interesting email from the charity Homeless Link, which said it
“recognises the challenge facing policy makers—it is a hugely complex sector, making finding solutions equally complex. However, supported housing provides a lifeline for thousands of vulnerable people and it is therefore imperative that we get it right.”
I think that all of us would agree with every word of that. Homeless Link went on to say that it
“welcomes the Government’s commitments around homelessness and rough sleeping.”
That is a very promising start.
The brief from the Communities and Local Government Committee rightly highlights the areas in which the joint report, the Committee and the wider sector are very supportive of the Government’s initial report in October 2017, responding to our recommendations in April. Crucially, the Government decided not to apply local housing allowance rates to tenants in supported housing. That was a clear recommendation in our report, and arguably the single most important one. I welcome the Government’s response in October, and hope that all right hon. and hon. Members here do likewise. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who was the Minister for this portfolio at the time, made it clear that, broadly speaking, the Government’s response built on the report that we had submitted.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East both highlighted that there remains concern about what I would call the issue of the guarantee. For example, I received an email from Joe Feeley, the chief executive of Emmaus in Gloucestershire, which does an outstanding job for the people it helps, in which he said:
“Although the proposals state that funding for supported housing costs would be ring fenced, we are concerned that in the long term this is difficult to guarantee.”
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made precisely the same point. Philosophically, we might all take the view that it is pretty difficult for any Government to guarantee everything forever, but it would be helpful if the new Minister could reassure Emmaus, and Members across the House, about how supporting housing costs will be ring-fenced, and the Government’s intention to continue that throughout the life of this Parliament.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I am here specifically to speak about Emmaus. One of Emmaus’s concerns is that it may be limited to the two-year period of funding. It would be so helpful if the Minister confirmed today that, although we cannot have an open-ended commitment, it will be a lot longer than two years.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for that intervention, because clearly the two-year issue is one aspect of this matter. However, I think the wider issue is probably around the definition of “short term”, as has been mentioned. I had an interesting briefing from representatives of Rethink Mental Illness, who said that they
“warmly welcome the decision not to proceed with the LHA cap, and to place long-term supported housing funding on a sustainable footing.”
However, they went on to raise
“concerns about some of the proposals for ‘short-term’ supported housing”,
which I think is normally defined as being under two years. That seems to be the issue that worries Rethink Mental Illness and other mental health organisations. Rethink Mental Illness has issued a joint letter with nine other organisations, aiming to tie down a little the definitions of “short term” and “very short term”. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that, but we will all have to bear in mind that the consultation closes on, I think, 23 January. It will be difficult for the Government to say too much in advance of that, so I assume that the main purpose of today’s debate is for us to get our points in before the Government’s response to the consultation, which will no doubt include some of these points from charities.
Sir Edward Davey
On that key point, those in the Treasury always want to control everything and to ring-fence funds, so that nothing more can be used. However, if the funds run out, the need of the people whom we are talking about is still there. We need to get that point over to Treasury Ministers, and I am sure that the Minister would wish to do that, so this is supportive of her case to the Treasury. It seems to me that expenditure should be demand-led, not Treasury-capped and controlled. The idea that we would exclude people who are among the most vulnerable in our society because the money had run out seems to me absurd and wrong.
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with his usual passion. I will not offer a lecture to the Treasury on how they should provide and quantify the amounts of money for particular parts of the supported housing provision that the Government are looking at reshaping. At this stage, we are trying to register our concerns, as he has done, on aspects of the supported housing report that we feel are not yet reflected in the Government’s position. We are also trying to encourage the Government, when looking at the response to the consultation, in which all these points will no doubt come up, to think widely—this is the great advantage of having the Minister in her new role—about what the Minister knows from her experience, and what I and other Members will share today from our experiences, about what works best on the ground.
That brings me to my last main point, which is about domestic violence refuges. Two really good points have been made. The first, made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, is that domestic violence refuges are slightly different because in many cases the individuals want to be out of the area—not just the parish, as my friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, mentioned, but quite often outside the constituency in which the violence happened. However, they will not all want to go to the same constituency, of course; they will want to move to different places, not least depending on where they have family links.
I can easily recall a woman fleeing from stalking in my constituency who wanted to be very far away, not only because of her fear of the individual who had stalked her, but because she wanted to go with her young children to where her mother was, to receive that additional family support. The issue is not just one of national funding, or having a national network, but of access, and how that works practically. If somebody fleeing domestic violence wants to move, for the sake of argument, from Gloucester to Birkenhead to take advantages of family links there, how will that work in practice? I can imagine that such access could be difficult.
I know the new Minister has experience of domestic violence refuges; I think I am right in saying that she helped to set one up in her constituency. That side of the argument is about the importance of localisation, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South mentioned. These things are very often best done on the ground by people who know how to do them. Bishop Rachel of Gloucester, in her new role, has very much championed a refuge that the diocese has effectively provided in the centre of our city. That is a really good example of a local initiative that I certainly would not want ruled out as a result of a very top-down approach, led by the man or woman in Whitehall who knows best.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the full cost is met, so that local authorities do not end up with a shortfall? That is the most important thing that I am calling for as Liberal Democrat spokesperson for local government.
Richard Graham
I quite understand where the hon. Lady is coming from. That will always be a concern for all of us. The Minister knows, given her experience of running a local council, that local government is always concerned about money and the balance. No doubt she will say something about that.
All hon. Members have come to this debate in an open, warm-hearted spirit. This is not a party political debate; it is about finding a solution to a difficult problem that has plagued successive Governments for some time, and for which there probably will never be an absolutely perfect remedy, not least because there will never be an unlimited supply of money, notwithstanding the optimism of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) about changing the Treasury’s way of doing things. What we can do is further explore the report’s recommendations to which the Government have not offered a complete response yet—no doubt they are waiting for the results of the consultation before doing so. Perhaps we can encourage the Minister to share some of her early thinking today.
I will finish by asking the Minister two questions. The first is about domestic violence refuges. Will she share a bit of her experience and her instincts about local initiatives by charitable, faith-led organisations that want to create local refuges for people who are happy to stay within a constituency? There is also the wider issue of how we help those who want to be a long way away, and how they can access refuges elsewhere.
My second question is about young people in supported housing, some of whom are put off looking for work by high rents and, sometimes, the impact of short-term employment on their benefits. Will the Minister share what she thinks the new funding model will do to change that? How will it give more support to such young people?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am pleased to speak in this debate as co-chair of the joint inquiry into the future of supported housing. It was a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and members of both Select Committees on the inquiry. It was a privilege to co-chair the inquiry on a part of the housing sector that makes a significant difference to the lives of those who rely on it.
The inquiry heard extensive evidence from residents in supported housing in formal oral evidence sessions, informal evidence sessions and visits and as written evidence. I have also visited several supported housing settings, both in my constituency and further afield, to speak to residents and providers about their experiences on the ground.
Supported housing enables a wide range of residents who face particular challenges in life to live independently and with dignity, and it enables them to access the support they need. It delivers substantial savings to the public sector, which are estimated to be £3.5 billion each year. Without supported housing, many residents would end up more reliant on the NHS at a much greater cost, or in some cases in the criminal justice system.
The Government’s approach to supported housing over the past two years has thrown the sector into disarray. The initial announcement that the local housing allowance cap will apply to supported housing, followed by a year of uncertainty, caused providers to put 85% of planned new schemes on hold. Many providers stated that they feared that they would have to withdraw from the supported housing sector altogether because the funding simply would not stack up. Our inquiry clearly demonstrated the financial impact that the LHA cap would have on the sector. In particular, it highlighted the fact that the calculation of LHA, in relation to private sector rents for general needs housing in local housing market areas, made no sense at all for the funding of supported housing. There is no direct or necessary relationship between private sector rents in a given area and the cost of delivering supported housing.
I am pleased that the Government accepted that argument and announced last year both that the LHA cap would not apply to any type of supported housing, and that a new type of sheltered rent would be introduced to cover the cost of sheltered housing. I have spoken to several providers since that announcement, and although it is welcome, they have many questions about the details of the proposal. They are anxious to know how the formula for sheltered rent will work, which schemes will be deemed to be sheltered housing, whether there will be a separate sheltered rent rate for extra care housing, and what provision there will be for sheltered rent to increase to keep pace with inflation and increasing demands. I hope that the Minister is able to answer some of those questions today.
I want to focus on two remaining areas of the inquiry report and the Government’s response. The first is the Government’s refusal to accept the inquiry’s recommendation to establish a national network of domestic violence refuges. Refuges are unique in the supported housing sector because to a large extent they serve women from outside the local authority area in which they are situated. The current system relies on local authorities’ mutual recognition of the need for refuge provision and their willingness to fund provision that they know will not generally be used by local women.
The cuts to local government funding over the past seven years have put that arrangement under great strain. Many councils feel that they have no choice but to make cuts to their provision, which is creating a postcode lottery in many areas of the country. For example, there are no longer any domestic violence refuges in the county of Cumbria. Having looked carefully at the evidence provided by Women’s Aid and others, the inquiry reached the view that the postcode lottery could be addressed only if the Government committed to establish a national network. Full devolution of funding to local authorities risks having the opposite effect. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s rejection of that recommendation and to commit to working with Women’s Aid to establish a national network of refuges to guarantee a place for every woman and child across the country who needs one.
Frank Field
That links to the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It is possible that the local initiatives that he praised so much will continue to operate, but they need funding. They are not dependent on local funding. Such measures often do not work unless they are supported strongly locally, but the funding is key.
Helen Hayes
I agree entirely with the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses. We need to guarantee even, appropriate provision across the country. That is the problem we seek to solve, and so far there is no evidence that the Government’s response addresses that concern in any way.
The second area I want to focus on is the funding of short-term supported housing. The inquiry report said:
“The Government is right to consider an alternative funding mechanism for very short-term accommodation, given the emergency nature of that provision and the inability of Universal Credit to reflect short-term changes in circumstance. The Government should consider a system of grants paid to local authorities so they are able to commission emergency accommodation in their areas.”
That recommendation is clear. We were talking about emergency provision and the specific problems of universal credit, and we were seeking to avoid a situation in which providers end up chasing arrears arising from the universal credit claims process in relation to residents who no longer live in their provision. I was therefore very surprised that the Government chose to define short-term supported housing as housing provision for up to two years. I have spent considerable time since the Government’s response was published speaking to a range of supported housing providers, and it is clear that the announcement raises more questions than it answers, and that there are very serious concerns about its implications.
I want to raise some of those concerns about the Government’s approach to short-term supported housing with the Minister today. First, the implication of the Government’s announcement is that short-term supported housing will move from being mainly demand-led, because eligibility for funding follows the individual resident, to a local authority commissioning model. That huge change raises many questions about the basis for commissioning. What guarantees will there be in relation to the range of provision that any given local authority will have to commission? What is to stop a local authority, for example, choosing to commission supported housing for people with disabilities but not for ex-offenders or people with addictions, despite there being a need for all types of supported housing in their area?
Secondly, once the supported housing has been commissioned, how will the local authority or the provider assess the eligibility for individual places, and who will have responsibility for that decision-making process and for reviewing decisions that go wrong and providing redress? There is a recognised shortage of supported housing across all types of provision, and in that situation decisions about eligibility can be difficult. How will the application and assessment process work for short-term supported housing under a commissioning model?
Thirdly, I am concerned about the level of funding and the lack of a mechanism for increasing funding. As I understand it, the proposal is for grants to be made to local authorities based on the housing benefit spend on short-term supported housing in the area. That will not capture the costs of support and specialist buildings, and it embeds the current shortage of supported housing into the funding system. It is not clear that, under that model, the Government will ever address the shortage or be able to keep pace with the increasing demands across many types of supported housing.
Fourthly, many providers of supported housing have expressed concern that the commissioning model will lead to an erosion of the housing rights of supported housing residents: since residents will not be paying rent, they will not have a tenancy, and that leaves open the possibility of an individual’s place in supported housing being taken away because someone with a greater need comes along, or because the relationship with staff at a particular scheme breaks down. There is no contractual basis to ensure the tenant’s rights. Supported housing residents are often among the most vulnerable people in our communities, and if the Government change the way in which their housing is funded they must make clear how their rights will be protected and guaranteed.
Finally, many providers have told me that they believe a fundamental problem with the definition of supported housing is as housing for up to two years. Many of the best-supported housing providers work in a resident-focused way, so residents may live in their scheme for as long as they need. The same scheme may include residents who are there for one or two years, and others who are there for much longer. It may not be apparent at the outset how long an individual tenant will need to live in that particular provision. So the definition inevitably creates the problem of a cliff edge—the clock will start ticking at the start of the two years and, irrespective of how individual residents are doing, they and their family will know that at the end of two years they will face a crunch point in the funding of their home.
Providers of supported housing for people with mental health needs, including Rethink Mental Illness, have highlighted the particular challenges that the two years will present for people with mental ill health, whose recovery often relies on minimising sources of anxiety and creating an environment of stability. The risk is that, for many of those residents, a two-year cliff edge could itself make their health worse and set back recovery.
Those are not trivial concerns. The Government have proposed a major change to the funding model for supported housing of up to two years, without fleshing out any details. The result is that, following the two years of uncertainty that the Government have already thrust on the supported housing sector, providers are left with many questions and grave concerns about their ability to sustain the homes they provide to some of our most vulnerable residents.
I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify the many unanswered questions, to listen to the concerns of the supported housing sector, and to produce a funding framework that will guarantee the provision we currently have and provide for an increase in supply to address shortfalls and cope with increasing demands. I end where I started. Supported housing is extraordinarily good value for money, and it is highly valued by those who rely on it. It is simply a false economy for the Government not to fund supported housing properly.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Sharma, for the fact that I will need to get back to the main Chamber, and so cannot remain for the rest of this debate. However, I wanted to speak on behalf of my Emmaus community in particular.
There is only one Emmaus community in Wales, and I am fortunate to have it in my constituency. As many Members know, Emmaus was started in 1991. It provides accommodation, training and meaningful work for those who are homeless or especially disadvantaged. In 2015-16 Emmaus supported more than 1,100 individuals, 12% of whom moved on into employment. According to estimates by the New Economics Foundation, the return on every £1 invested in Emmaus is £11 in social, economic and environmental benefits. There are savings to the Department of Health on hospital and emergency admissions, to the Ministry of Justice from keeping people out of prison and reducing crime and reoffending, and to local government on hostel accommodation and drug and alcohol services. The stability and rehabilitation provided to Emmaus companions is crucial in enabling them to rebuild their lives and move into paid employment.
The chief executive of Emmaus South Wales, Tom Clarke, has talked to me about his very real concerns about the Government’s new commissioning model, which he fears could undermine the excellent support Emmaus provides. There is a lot of concern about the uncertainty over the security and stability of funding for short-term accommodation providers such as Emmaus. It would be shameful if its work had to cease in 2020 because it could not secure the necessary funding.
The bulk of Emmaus income is generated from its core business activities of collecting, refurbishing and selling donated furniture and household goods. That brings in about £5 million per year. But Emmaus also needs the contribution of housing benefit—that is £5 million per year—to help transform the lives of the vulnerable people who rely on its support. Emmaus needs complete certainty that the ring-fenced funding for short-term supported housing will be guaranteed long term.
As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), there are major concerns about the definition of short-term accommodation and how it will impact on the likes of Emmaus. Emmaus’s reading of the new proposals is that it would fall into the short-term accommodation category when seeking funding under the new system—“short term” being defined as a period of up to two years. About 20% of Emmaus residents stay for longer than two years, after which their funding from local authorities would stop.
It is crucial to ensure that the work of organisations such as Emmaus continues. Through work and training, Emmaus does so much to help people to rebuild their lives, to contribute to society while removing risk and threat for many of them, and often to regain links to their families, with whom they might previously have had a damaging relationship. I cannot say enough how tough a regime Emmaus runs—it is not a soft option; it is a tough thing to do and a hard way back into society, and the people doing it deserve our support.
Emmaus welcomes people with alcohol and drug addiction, or mental health issues, ex-offenders and those who struggle to function in mainstream society. The majority of people Emmaus deals with are former rough sleepers. There is no limit on the length of time an individual may remain in an Emmaus community, but those who are ready to move on are supported to do so.
Emmaus’s pioneering approach saves the taxpayer money—we would be investing to save. Emmaus takes £9,000 in housing benefit for each one of its companions, whereas the cost to the public purse of one rough sleeper for 12 months is estimated by Crisis to be about £20,000. That is a huge saving for the Treasury, which likes to save money.
We must learn the lessons of the practices implemented by Emmaus. If the Government are truly to meet their stated objectives of securing the supply of supported housing and strengthening the focus on outcomes and oversight, they should heed their own guidelines and look to support the Emmaus communities. It is essential that bodies such as Emmaus are not damaged by Government proposals. I am sure that the Government have no desire to damage Emmaus, but they might, unless they are aware of the unique Emmaus funding model. In return for work, people get food and accommodation, and Emmaus gives that in return for just one benefit, provided by the state: housing benefit.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is no longer in his place, but I congratulate him and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on securing this debate through their efforts, and those of their Committee members, to produce their groundbreaking and constructive report of 1 May 2017.
I welcome the new Minister, and pay tribute to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for his work over the past 18 months in helping us to move towards the goal that we are all striving for: that of putting the future funding of supported housing on a secure, sustainable and long-term footing. It is vital to do that if we are not to let down vulnerable groups, whether they are elderly, young, have physical disabilities, are fleeing domestic violence, or face mental health challenges and anguish. The demand for such care and support is rising, because we have an ageing population, and increasing levels of mental ill health and learning disabilities.
This is a difficult task, as the sector is made up of many sub-groups with different challenges and needs. It is necessary to do a lot of background work, to listen to the views of all interested parties, and to make proposals that will stand the test of time and help to secure much-needed investment in the sector.
It is important to recognise the good work that many people and organisations have done over the past 18 months. Providers, charities and their representatives have participated in consultations and have provided the Government, MPs, and peers with well-reasoned proposals. Credit is due to the Government for carrying out the first evidence-based review for 20 years, and for conducting two consultations in which they fully engaged with the sector. They listened to their concerns and have set up task and finish groups.
The Government have also provided a significant amount of money for supported housing schemes, such as the shared ownership and affordable homes programme, the care and support specialised housing fund, and funding for women and girls fleeing domestic violence. It is also important to recognise the very influential joint report of the Select Committees. They did a great deal of listening and thinking, and they have come up with constructive proposals that significantly move forward the complicated process of finding the right solutions.
It is appropriate to highlight the work that Lord Best, Housing and Care 21, Riverside, the Home Group and Hanover Housing Association did to analyse data from approximately 43,000 supported housing and older people’s tenancies across the United Kingdom, to demonstrate that the Select Committees’ supported housing allowance proposal represented a viable and workable approach.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend has been doing a great job on this subject for a long time, as other Members have said. When Lord Best and the five supported housing providers, including Riverside, analysed some of that data, they were very supportive of the Government’s principle that there should be some control of costs in the sector, and of having diversity in approaches, recognising that costs vary substantially across the country. We hope that that will be reflected in the Government’s eventual position. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Peter Aldous
I do. That illustrates the point that the big challenge is in how to respond to local needs but not, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, create a postcode lottery effect.
The Government’s revised proposals, which they announced at the end of October, were generally a step in the right direction. I hope that through the consultation that closes next week, it will be possible to address the outstanding concerns, so that the Government can arrive at a funding scheme that we can all support.
Like colleagues, I received many briefings before the debate, and I will highlight some of the feedback. The Home Group, which is active in the north-east, Cornwall and East Anglia, including Lowestoft in my constituency, advised me that the Government’s October announcements gave it the increased confidence that it needed to get on with building supported housing services. It announced a £50 million investment package, which will commence in March, for three new supported housing schemes in Havant, Calderdale and Scarborough. It advised that the removal of the local housing allowance cap enabled it to commit to those developments, but it emphasised that it is vital that the detail of the new supported and sheltered housing funding proposals—such as the service charge cap—does not undermine the development of additional capacity, which we desperately need.
The Home Group believes that the overarching policy direction in this consultation is the right one; there is differentiation between short-term, sheltered and extra care, and long-term supported housing, which enables providers like it to design different funding mechanisms that cover legitimate costs. It recognises the diverse nature of its client groups in the sector. It stresses that it is essential that the three models work coherently alongside one another, as a pathway. As one of the UK’s largest providers, it works nationally with customer groups that fall into each of the three funding models. A customer may come to a service due to crisis, and thus will be eligible for short-term funding; however, they may depend on long-term support. It is therefore essential that a customer can move seamlessly through the pathway, and that a single scheme can efficiently incorporate two or more of the funding models.
We have heard that providers’ main concern with the proposals is about short-term housing. Those who have raised worries include the National Housing Federation, Anchor, Hanover Housing, Housing and Care 21, Riverside, YMCA, St Mungo’s, the Salvation Army, the Supported Housing Alliance, Rethink Mental Illness, and Emmaus, which has a community in Norfolk, near Bungay, which serves my constituency. The long list tells a story.
Riverside, St Mungo’s, YMCA and the Salvation Army have highlighted three concerns. First, the ring-fenced local authority block grants do not provide the same protections and rights for those living in short-term supported housing as for those living in long-term supported housing. They regard that as a backward step and a return to an institutional model. Secondly, they highlight that the proposed policy is moving in the opposite direction from universal credit, which seeks to encourage independence, with claimants managing their own housing costs. Thirdly, they point out that a discretionary local funding system would not provide the assurance required by providers seeking either to develop much-needed new schemes or to invest in the necessary upgrading and repairing of facilities.
Generally, funders lend on a 30-year basis, and the current model of benefit-backed rental income has enabled the sector to borrow significant sums at highly competitive rates. In contrast, local authority contracts normally last between three and five years only; that will not provide the necessary security of revenue to obtain private finance. There is no guarantee that ring fences will remain in place; indeed, recent history suggests that they are dismantled pretty quickly.
Fourthly, although authorities already commission services that reflect local needs, the proposals will extend this commissioning approach to housing costs, including rent and service charges. That will make providers completely reliant on local authorities for all funding. There is a worry that housing providers’ loss of independence will undermine sector viability and stifle innovation. Already, an example has been brought to my attention of a local authority specifically requesting, in tenders, that housing costs be reduced.
Finally, the organisations point out that establishing a new funding system for short-term supported housing requires complex arrangements that impose expensive administrative burdens and bureaucracy on local authorities. Their alternative proposal, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration, is threefold. First, they propose that housing costs remain in the welfare system. Secondly, instead of devising a complicated new funding system, the Government should review the administration of universal credit, and in particular the speed with which claims are administered, so that it can work better for cases of short stays. Thirdly, in services where the typical length of stay is such that universal credit cannot cover housing costs—for example, where the stay is a matter of days or weeks as opposed to months—localised funding should be an option. This localised funding model could help with the wait for housing costs to be met during the initial assessment period.
There has already been mention in the debate of the need, highlighted by the National Housing Federation, to tighten the definition of short-term services in the consultation paper. It is very wide and should be tightened, so that it is clear that the local system covers short-term emergency accommodation, where people stay for a period of weeks, rather than months. That would be in line with the recommendation in the joint report, and it would make the system fit better with universal credit.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if we look too much at how to get a saving out of the service, and look at other local authorities, we miss the fact that services for short-term supported housing are extremely good value for money, because they are preventive and they help people to find help before their issues worsen?
Peter Aldous
The hon. Lady is right. It has been said before that if we get the supported housing right, we save the national health service money. As ever—we are always making this plea—the Government need to break out of departmental silos and think holistically. I am sure that the Minister, in her new position, will take a sledgehammer to those silos.
I would like to highlight feedback I received from the Professional Deputy Service, which is based in Suffolk and supports individuals who lack the capacity to manage their property and personal affairs. In its response to the consultation, it emphasised the importance of the most severely disabled people with housing needs being brought into a local strategic planning and provision process. I will look to facilitate that in the coming months by working with the Professional Deputy Service, local councils and housing associations.
The partnership between the supported housing sector, Parliament and the Government is moving in the right direction in putting in place a long-term funding framework for supported housing, but there is clearly still work to do to address the significant drawbacks of the proposals for short-term accommodation, to properly synchronise supported housing processes with those of universal credit, and to provide the seamless journey articulated by the Home Group. We need to complete that task, which is so important to the dignity and wellbeing of a diverse, often vulnerable but very important group of people.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I will be very brief; as I said when I apologised to you earlier, I have to leave to go to a funeral in Bedford.
I share the concern outlined in the Select Committees’ joint report that the Government do not seem to be aware of the impact of their funding proposals on the supported housing sector. Some vital support services —often those for the most vulnerable—depend on discretionary funding from local authorities. The home- lessness charity Emmaus provides a home and meaningful work to more than 750 formerly homeless people across the UK. It has a community in Carlton, about 10 miles from my constituency, and has helped many rough sleepers in Bedford. The chairman of its board, Frank McMahon, recently wrote to me to outline his concerns about its future.
Much support for homeless people provides them with only a bed for the night and a hot meal. The next morning, they are back on the streets. The Emmaus model is sustainable and yields fantastic results. Many of the men and women who join an Emmaus community are not job-ready, but they gain skills and experience that often help them to gain employment when they move on. Although the Government’s proposals state that funding for supported housing costs will be ring-fenced, there is real concern that that will be difficult to guarantee in the long term.
Many supported housing providers have faced severe financial hardship since the removal in 2009 of the ring fence for the Supporting People programme. It is imperative that funding for housing costs does not follow a similar path. Introducing competition for funding for women’s refuges or schemes such as Emmaus is risky and short-sighted. Providing housing is very different from running a service, yet someone who read the report might think the Government were talking about commodities, not vulnerable people with complex problems and past traumas to overcome.
A Women’s Aid survey of refuge providers found that a one-size-fits-all funding model for short-term accommodation would force more than half of refuges to close or reduce their provision, resulting in 4,000 more women and children being turned away from the life-saving services they desperately need. Removing short-term accommodation from the mainstream benefits system would mean that residents in supported accommodation no longer had a right to claim housing benefit, and removing the financial underpinning of a rent agreement between landlord and tenant would risk undermining residents’ security. Rather than adopt a localised commissioning model for supported housing, the Government should use existing housing benefit arrangements as the basis of a new funding model, with enhanced regulation, auditing and cost control.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on the work that has been done on this important issue.
I am sure that I am not alone in having been contacted by constituents who support St Mungo’s. It is worth quoting something that they said in their letters:
“People who are homeless should enjoy the same level of security as those with long-term needs, and therefore should have their housing costs met through the welfare system wherever possible. The current proposals leave them with less security than those in long-term supported housing or private renting, as they must rely on local funding based on estimated need rather than claiming benefits directly to pay their rent.”
That shortish sentence sums up well the dilemma that we face with short-term housing. I intend to confine my remarks to short-term supported housing, because I think there is an emerging consensus that that is where the problem lies.
First, I pay credit to Riverside, which has been cited on more than one occasion, and in particular to Jenny Luckett, for its briefing. I should point out that any errors of fact or misjudgments are mine, not Riverside’s. This issue is important to Riverside, because it currently has 2,600 bed spaces in short-term accommodation, which accounts for 64% of its supported housing. Obviously, it has a significant stake in the Government’s proposals, as do the people who rely on it for those services.
I will raise four issues and then make four suggestions to the Minister. By the way, I congratulate her on her new responsibilities. I apologise that I will not be present until the end of the debate—I need to go to a constituency engagement—but I shall read her response with great eagerness tomorrow.
The first criticism that housing associations make is that the Government’s proposals are a lost opportunity to prepare tenants to engage with the welfare system and develop a direct relationship between their housing costs and their personal budgeting. Given the way it is proposed the system will work, that relationship will be broken.
Their second criticism, which others have made more fully so I will not labour the point, is that tenants in short-term supported accommodation will lose basic rights. People already find themselves in difficult positions only to find that they have fewer rights than others in different circumstances. Surely, we do not want that situation to get worse.
Thirdly, Riverside makes the point that providers will lose independence because of the way it is envisaged local authorities’ commissioning role will work. Control over things such as cleaning, the provision of heat, light and power to common areas, and paying the mortgage will, to a large extent, be taken out of providers’ hands. Riverside believes that, in the long term, that loss of independence may undermine the viability of providers and stifle innovation.
Fourthly, there is concern about the impact of the proposed changes on the growth of the sector. I will not labour that point because it has been made by others, but lenders in some such schemes have great concerns and say they will have problems with lending on some schemes in the future. If that is the case, it is a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.
In concluding, I will make four quick points. First, the default position for all supported housing, including short-term, should be that housing costs should remain in the main universal credit system, allowing the Government to meet their wider policy aim of moving everyone on to a modernised welfare system. Secondly, the Government should review the administration of universal credit, in particular the speed with which claims are administered, so that it works better for tenants living in supported housing. That point was made in different ways by others, but I am sure the Minister will agree it is important.
Thirdly, providers should be able to opt into a localised scheme based on a grant system for the small number of schemes where the typical length of stay is such that it will not be possible for tenants to establish universal credit claims to cover their housing costs. Finally, any staffing costs currently met through housing benefit that cannot be met through universal credit under the revised service charge eligibility rules should be met as part of the local authority-administered grant system. Such support from dedicated staff often makes the real difference in moving on to something more suitable and, after traumatic experiences, enables people to get their lives in order.
Those are the points I want to make. I know the Minister will listen carefully, and I apologise again to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) for not being here for their winding-up speeches. I hope the Minister will take into account the important points made by so many during the debate.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Sharma, and to engage with the new Minister for the first time, too. She and I share a couple of things in common. We share a background in local government, but we also come to this place from the east midlands. In the east midlands, we are very practical and pragmatic people, and it is that practical and pragmatic side of the Minister that I intend to appeal to today.
I congratulate the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee on their excellent joint report. When I read it, I find it impossible not to note the date it was published: 25 April 2017, when I was just a twinkle in the eye of the Nottingham North electorate. I say that not for the journey down memory lane, but because when I was preparing to speak I looked around the Chamber and noted colleagues in their places, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin)—who is no longer in his place—for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). All of us are new and we all come from local government. It is no surprise that any of us would make supported housing a priority in our early months, because it is incredibly important, and it does not take much time in local government to grasp its impact on 700,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Whatever we do in the changes we make, we ought to be careful. I welcome the Government’s intention to find a long-term sustainable funding mechanism, but we need to understand the impact that even tiny alterations make and we must be wary of unintended consequences.
I rise to talk about merely 1% of the changes—the Minister will be pleased to hear that she will get only a hundredth of the speech of which I am capable—which is the 1% that relates to domestic violence. I am concerned about possible unintended consequences. It may be only 1% of the funding, but it is an extraordinarily high-impact element of public funding, and the stroke of a Minister’s pen can unwittingly close a refuge, when failure to get into a refuge could be life-or-death on that night for an individual.
Mr Sharma, I am sure that you, the Minister and all Members the Chamber follow my contributions avidly, so you may be aware that I raised this topic in a debate on refuges on 12 December. I also raised it in my first question to the Prime Minister, on 13 December. I make no apologies for a little repetition of that material, because we are reaching a crunch moment.
As the consultation comes to a close on Tuesday, I will be at No. 10 with Women’s Aid and others to present a petition with 130,000 signatures. Now, however, is a moment for Ministers and all hon. Members to be clear about our direction and what change we ought to make. I hope to encourage the Government to make an exceptionally timely change now, and there is a real opportunity for that by removing this tiny fraction from their proposals.
Why do I suggest that? It has been mentioned by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in his excellent opening speech, that the strength of domestic violence refuge provision lies in having a national network of refuges. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to understand that, when a survivor needs to flee her abusers—it is mainly women—she may need to flee a great distance from where they live. Women’s Aid research shows that is the case in more than two thirds of instances.
It is not that there might be a need for a national network; there absolutely is a need for a national network, because the vast majority of the time an individual in one location will need to go to another. An individual in Nottingham actually has a greater interest in what decision makers are doing in Birmingham at the moment than in what is happening in Nottingham. Locally devolving funding knocks into tiny pieces a complex ecosystem of resources and threatens the good operation of services.
There is a compelling case for the service to be national, not local. That is not just my conclusion or that of Women’s Aid, but the substance of the report, both in paragraph 105 and conclusion 20. The report states the “unique challenges” that the sector faces, but there is more to it.
I am a big fan of local devolution. It is probably a common trait of those who have spent time in local government that we feel we could do more if given the opportunity. I am also, for my sins—I do not talk about this often because there is no credit in it, only blame—a wily veteran of local authority commissioning. I led on commissioning in Nottingham for three years, and if I were still in that role I know how I would handle a devolved pot: I would seek to reduce my unit costs by creating an economy of scale. There is no great science to that. However, with regard to refuges, I would handle that in one of two ways. I would either try to granulate the funding to work out which bit is for refuges and commission individually, in which case I have lost all the value of the economy of scale, or—I fear there is a growing trend towards this; there was when I finished last June—I might put my refuge provision into the general pot and explore dispersed tenancies rather than refuges as a way to house these people who really need help. There is energy in that direction not just in Nottingham but up and down the country, but it is very early days for that research, and I would not want to see a change here that makes that a fashion before we truly understand what it might mean. I certainly would not encourage that direction.
[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]
We know what Women’s Aid says about the potential impact of the funding change: perhaps up to half of the refuges that responded to its survey may have to close or downsize as a result. We are talking about a high impact. There is a compelling case to extract the money nationally and for Ministers to commission a national network. That would get the economies of scale and give us joined-up provision. The excellent report, at conclusion 20, says that the Government should work with the sector to devise a new national model, and I wholeheartedly agree.
This pragmatic new Minister has a great opportunity. It is the perfect moment, because late this year we will be availed of two wonderful opportunities. The Government have already announced that by November refuge funding is to be reviewed, and by the end of the year we will see new domestic violence legislation, which Members across the House await enthusiastically. This is a great moment for the Government to grasp this issue, pull it out of the changes and wait for that moment at the end of the year, work with the sector as suggested and come out with a funded, planned and effective national network of refuges. I believe that is the moment we have arrived at. Two Select Committees, Women’s Aid and the domestic violence sector, more than 130,000 people via an online petition and so many others are urging Ministers to take that new course. If they do, I think we will get something truly valuable out of it. I commend the report and that change of action, and I hope the Minister will too.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Sir Graham, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I join colleagues in welcoming the joint report between the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on supported housing, and congratulate them on securing this debate.
A safe, secure and supportive home can be the key to improving or repairing lives and to unlocking people’s potential, as has already been acknowledged. Supported housing helps hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people across the country to live independently or to turn their lives around. That is why it must be a priority for all of us in this House.
I welcome the Government’s change of heart on funding for longer-term supported housing, but I remain extremely concerned, along with many of my colleagues, about the funding and provision of short-term supported accommodation services with a target length of stay of up to two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said in opening the debate, the Committee’s concerns about funding for emergency accommodation should not apply to that wider provision. Short-term supported accommodation providers across Nottingham are telling me that
“the Government obviously feels it has listened and taken account of what providers have been saying.
Unfortunately though, the problem is not solved for providers like us who offer short-term supported housing. If anything, the new proposals…are worse than the previous one.”
Notwithstanding the reassurances offered by the Government in the consultation, they are leaving this sort of accommodation in a vulnerable position. Local providers do not know how the localised funds will be distributed and there is no guarantee of what will happen to them over time. They are worried that, even within a ring fence, local authorities—whose budgets are of course under extreme pressure as a result of seven years of austerity—will have to reallocate funding to align it better with their statutory obligations.
Nottingham Community Housing Association has told me that, as a landlord that operates across the east midlands region, covering several local authority areas, it is concerned about the proposal for a locally administered pot. It says that the expertise in housing is not held with upper-tier authorities, and it is worried about the correct sizing of the pot. In addition, it says that the locally administered pot is likely to be subject to different requirements in different local areas, so a landlord such as NCHA will have the apprehension of dealing with not one approach to housing costs, as in the current model, but with several different approaches across the region. NCHA is worried that the outcome will be increased costs in the management of such arrangements and potentially differing levels of housing management services procured across the region, resulting in a postcode lottery for residents.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that if unnecessary procurement and commissioning achieved poorer value for money, it would not be good. Of course, housing costs are already subject to scrutiny by housing benefit teams, the local market in respect of self-funders—particularly in the case of sheltered accommodation—and through the value for money standard, which is a significant feature of Homes and Communities Agency regulation. Adding a new level of administration to local government will increase costs without directly benefiting individuals or the public purse.
Currently, providers are able to move quickly to meet unmet housing need without having to go through local government procurement channels. As an example of that, to ease the pressures of homelessness this winter, NCHA reopened a recently closed care home as a much-needed temporary accommodation service for couples and families who are homeless in Nottingham. They did so in consultation with the city council and in a matter of weeks. Under the proposed arrangements, such flexibility could be lost. The service would need to be commissioned and funded from a pot that has potentially had its entire allocation accounted for and is therefore empty.
I will say a little bit more about some of the local services and how they will be impacted. Last year I visited the Stephanie Lodge step-down mental health service in Radford in my constituency, which provides outstanding care and support for up to 10 residents leaving in-patient psychiatric care. Again, that is an NCHA service, and NCHA is concerned that under the current proposals residents at Stephanie Lodge will lose their automatic entitlement to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.
Holly Dagnall, director of homes and wellbeing at NCHA, told me that
“whilst rolling up housing costs with care and support costs to be met by a locally administrated ‘pot’ might be helpful for those in our services who wish to work, the reality is that most if not all of our residents are a significant distance from the workplace, having moved to Stephanie Lodge from acute mental health in-patient services. NCHA believe that this is the only potential upside of the current proposals and that in reality this is an upside which will not be relevant to the vast majority of our residents at Stephanie Lodge.”
NCHA is anxious that
“the loss of automatic entitlement to housing costs being met for the individual means that the service is at risk of insufficient funding being made available to fund the important, statutory and legal housing management functions required to ensure that landlord duties are adequately discharged in the provision of safe and secure accommodation”
for tenants who are, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate, very vulnerable.
Short-term supported accommodation providers in Nottingham tell me that they would like to see housing costs remain within the benefits system as the housing element of universal credit, whether that is for services like Stephanie Lodge or others, where residents are likely to live for between six months and a year. They believe that that is possible to administer and provides the best assurances for both landlords and service providers, and people in receipt of the services. It will also provide housing cost assurance for new developments, meaning that providers will be able to proceed with greater confidence in providing much-needed support for vulnerable people in my constituency.
In addition to the concerns expressed to me by providers, I have been contacted by residents across Nottingham South, who have told me how living in supported accommodation has changed their lives. One former service user, Katie, who was supported by Framework—I do not know if the Minister is aware of it, but it specialises in homelessness and homelessness prevention across the east midlands—spoke of the transformation that supported housing has created for her. She said:
“I was homeless before I moved here. It was scary because I didn’t know what was going to happen. I felt powerless. I’ve been here for three or four months and it’s been great… It’s been great to have a roof over my head but it’s also taught me a lot about life.”
She explains how having to pay rent and bills for the first time has been an education and helped her to grow up and realise she could live alone in the future. Short-term supported housing is essential to help people like Katie to move on with their lives, but they also have to have somewhere to move on to within the housing system. Framework has told me that one of the reasons people cannot move on is that hostels are full and there is nowhere for people to move on to, which is creating a backlog of unmet need.
In his final budget, George Osborne announced a £100 million capital fund for the development of move-on accommodation. It later emerged that 50% of the fund was earmarked to be spent in London, leaving only £50 million for the whole of the rest of the country, even though local authorities in the midlands and the north now face greater numbers of people sleeping rough than in London, and the rate of increase is faster. Concerns have been raised with me about that programme, and indeed were raised with the Minister’s predecessor, by Andrew Redfern, the chief executive of Framework.
Andrew Redfern was told by CLG officials that the programme was likely to be launched in the autumn of 2016. While it was launched by the Mayor of London on that date, there has still been no indication of when and how the £50 million for outside London can be accessed. What is the hold-up? Can the Minister tell us today when we can expect to see that much-needed funding made available for local authorities to bid for?
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and other hon. Members have already spoken about the dangers that the Government’s proposals present to domestic violence refuges, including our own local provision. This is incredibly serious, given the pressures that we know are already in the system. Every year the refuges run by Women’s Aid Integrated Services in Nottinghamshire turn away one in 10 women due to lack of space. That is not a problem localised to Nottingham. Demand for refuge places remains sky high across the country. Nationally, 60% of referrals were declined in 2016-17. Shockingly, on just one day this year, 90 women and 94 children were turned away. Any change in funding that endangers their future is extremely worrying.
Clearly, we should do even more to support the refuges for women fleeing domestic violence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said, there is the potential for devastating consequences arising from the proposals as Women’s Aid estimates that half of refuges may have to close or reduce their provision. So we have been warned. The move to a local model is deeply flawed. According to the information that I have had from local refuges, two thirds of the women flee to a refuge outside their local area, and that is backed up by what is happening. Nationally, Women’s Aid is issuing an SOS call to the Government—I know the Minister is listening—to secure a sustainable funding solution for what are literally life-saving services, and I stand with Women’s Aid in making that call.
I am pleased that locally there has been a strong commitment from both Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council to fund our refuges. Currently, five out of the nine refuges in the county are commissioned by them. However, one refuge in the city area and three in the county receive direct DCLG funding, which runs out over the next few months. Women’s Aid Integrated Services has told me it is unclear what will happen to those four refuges. Locally, that leaves us facing the loss of 112 bed spaces accommodating 21 families at any one time. One of those four refuges is set to close at the end of March. That particular refuge is one of a small number of refuges in the country that can accommodate women with large families, women with older male children and women with complex needs for whom the usual shared refuge is not suitable. The refuge has six houses with 37 bed spaces, and the largest house can accommodate a family with up to eight children. One more Nottingham refuge that accommodates women with complex needs is also facing a very uncertain future. The loss of any beds and spaces will put intolerable pressure on the rest of the system.
Val Lunn, CEO of Nottingham Women’s Aid Integrated Services, said:
“The Government is planning a new Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill...to protect survivors”—
which we certainly welcome—
“but this is neither use nor ornament if refuges close because of the proposed changes to funding...Refuges save the lives of women and children trying to escape domestic abuse. These plans threaten to take us back to the bad old days of the 1970s.”
I know the Minister will not want us to go back to those days. I urge her to take account of the considerable concerns among providers on the front line and to work with Women’s Aid to find a solution.
The Minister’s predecessor took account of the concerns of providers and of the Select Committees’ views on long-term supported accommodation provision. I, in common with colleagues today, am raising concerns about short-term housing provision. It is time for her to listen to the experts again.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful for me to say that I hope to move on to the winding-up speeches by 10 to 4 at the latest. Three speakers have indicated they would like to take part, so if they can try to keep themselves to around 10 minutes each, I will not need to impose an official time limit.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on securing this debate and on all the work that they have done. I welcome the new Minister to her place—a pragmatic Minister, I hear.
Housing policy is complex. It is not easy and not always universally popular. It is tricky for Governments of any colour to develop policy, but we can consider the end result in fairly simple terms. Is it the right thing to do and is it better than what went before? When it comes to the proposals for the Government’s definition of short-term supported housing, charities, users and service providers are telling me, as have Members in this Chamber and beyond, that the answer is a plain and simple no. Indeed, on the test of whether the policy will make things better, it fails in relation to housing provision and tenants’ rights, and pretty quickly it will have a knock-on effect on other services such as the NHS.
Before I explain why, I accept that there are some things that the housing providers who operate in my constituency and elsewhere welcome. They tell me that the Government have done the right thing on LHA and by recognising the higher costs of sheltered housing and extra care housing. That is to the Government’s credit. However, a Government that accept praise when they do the right thing must also listen to experts when they criticise them—constructively—too.
Housing providers tell me that the move to the defined short-term local authority grants not only has the potential to be damaging to the sector in future, but is already causing 85% of new schemes to be put on hold. Even if we accept that the local authority grants will be ring-fenced—the evidence suggests they will not—can we blame any housing association for being cautious, knowing what pressure there is on local government finances and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) mentioned, bearing in mind the complexity of local government finances as well?
The consequences reach beyond the issue of housing numbers alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East referred to this. There are serious implications for tenants’ rights and the broader health and social care sector. Local authority grants do not provide the same protections and rights for those living in short-term supported housing as those living in long-term schemes. Service users will no longer enjoy the same rights as tenants. The situation is described by Riverside and Women’s Aid, who operate in my constituency and elsewhere, as a backward step. Many people who access such housing are already marginalised from society on multiple levels. Removing tenancy rights not only makes matters worse, but sends a signal that our services and our society define users as short-term problems, not as equals. On the question of whether it is the right thing to do, the answer again must surely be no.
Finally, when it comes to the test of whether the policy will make things better for services such as the NHS and social care—we have already referred to women’s refuges—yet again the answer is no. Short-term accommodation provides emergency support for those who have been through a crisis: the homeless, victims of domestic violence, people with mental ill health, and those dealing with drug and alcohol dependency. Social care, our NHS and homelessness are already at crisis point. A policy that reduces the chance of vulnerable people having a safe place to stay will only make matters worse.
In the current climate it may be unwise to predict politics. However, I fear that 12 months down the line the effects of these policies being enacted will be a topic of debate yet again, with the most vulnerable in our society paying for the consequences of a poorly shaped policy. My message to the Minister is this: no individual contributing to this debate here and beyond has every single answer to every question. But collectively, the Minister included, our housing associations, our charities and our service users have the knowledge and the ideas to develop a better approach than the one that is currently planned. Listen to what they say. It is in all our interests, so please respond pragmatically.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
In their response to recommendation 3 of the joint report, the Government state that they are committed to boosting the supply of supported housing, but already there are supported housing schemes that have closed as a result of changes to the funding arrangements over the years. We are talking not just about supported housing for older people or disabled people. In Ipswich we had a Foyer for vulnerable young people, which was opened in 1997—one of the first fruits of a Labour Government and a Labour-run county council. The Foyer catered for up to 44 homeless young people from 16 to 24 years of age, many of them looked-after children who were no longer willing or able to live with foster parents. Those are precisely the sort of young people for whom significant investment at an early stage will make a life-changing difference.
The building was a disused warehouse, which was completely gutted and converted. It was, in effect, built for the purpose at significant capital cost. It provided accommodation in a supported setting, with 24-hour support, life training and counselling. There was also a range of training to help the young people gain employment. The provision covered money management, cookery and the search for independent housing, advice on benefits, help in getting treatment for substance abuse, and work training and voluntary work experience.
The Foyer for Ipswich now stands empty. There are substantially fewer places for homeless young people in Ipswich than there were a year ago. Circle Housing, which took over its running, said it could no longer afford to subsidise it. The county council, which is of course now Conservative-run, refused to meet the difference between the cost of provision and the amount that the Government were willing to make available. It was claimed that the young people could move into the local YMCA and that none of them would be thrown on to the streets, and it is true that that happened. However, there is an absolute shortage of places for homeless people in Ipswich and the closure of the Foyer has added to that shortage. For every young person who is in the YMCA rather than being in the Foyer, a place is no longer available in the YMCA for another young person who might have taken it.
The young people in question will not receive, at the YMCA, the support, counselling or training that the Foyer could provide. I do not believe that the Government response to the joint report recognises what flexibility is needed in the range of funding required for vulnerable people with such a wide range of needs. A substantial level of funding administered through local government would provide that flexibility but also entail a range of expectations for the councils to be held to, as well as requiring a regime of local government funding that would not force councils to pick and choose which statutory duty they could afford to take more seriously than another.
The alternative—possibly a more achievable one—is to plan a national network of hostels for homeless young people in need of additional support, as has been proposed for women’s refuges. The Minister should bear in mind that enough funding is needed, but also that it should be provided in such a way that there can be a full range of provision—not just the least expensive form—and securely enough to create the confidence necessary to plan for that full range of provision.
So long as supported housing facilities such as the Foyer for Ipswich continue to close, the Minister can be sure that the Government have not got things right.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I declare an interest as a current member of Gateshead Council. I am a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee. I was not a member when the report was produced, but I was when we considered the Government’s response. Before I came to this place, I was a housing portfolio holder, so I tracked the issue with great interest.
I want to raise several matters. First, it was good to hear that the Government are not pursuing the local housing allowance in relation to supported housing and social housing generally. That removed a good deal of uncertainty from a huge proportion of our sheltered housing stock—about 71% of stock—so it was a positive move, although we still need to see what comes out of the proposals on sheltered housing rent. My thanks are not unqualified, therefore, but the move was welcome.
Secondly, on the provisions for short-term and transitional housing, as other colleagues have said, the Joint Committee’s report discussed very short-term and emergency accommodation. The situation seems unclear; I was going to say it mixes apples and pears, but perhaps it is more like mixing apples and lemons, because of the wide range of diverse provision covering different needs, which might involve different funding elements and methods of funding. Members have identified many issues and I will not go over them all. However, there has been mention of funding for schemes of up to two years. Given the different groups that use the accommodation, from homeless people with an urgent and immediate need to people facing drug and alcohol rehabilitation following a crisis, there are different needs that should be taken into account.
The issues that are thrown up have already been referred to by housing associations and other organisations. From the providers’ point of view there is continued uncertainty as to funding of the relevant part of the market, and they feel that that will stifle development. Hon. Members have referred to the desperate need for increased provision for such supported housing across a wide range of groups. We know that the uncertainty has already stifled development, because of the local housing allowance debate and the wait for a decision. We cannot afford further delays in the provision of additional accommodation of the kind in question. There is concern that local authority contracts may be as short as three to five years, and that all the uncertainty, along with the fear that funds that may be ring-fenced to begin with may not be permanently ring-fenced, will create a problem and stifle the development of new schemes. It is a practical problem.
The impact on people—tenants—has also been mentioned. They will not get the same benefits in relation to tenancies as they may have got previously, and will be subject to a different regime.
As I have said, we know that the local housing allowance consultation stifled development, and we cannot afford for that to happen again. Organisations that have been mentioned in the debate, such as Riverside, the YMCA, St Mungo’s and the Salvation Army, have clearly pointed out the problems in briefings that they have circulated. I have no doubt that they have presented them to the Government as part of their response. I hope that the Government will listen to their comments and think again. I know that a number of organisations have suggested alternative funding models for the future.
Many hon. Members have referred to domestic violence, and we have heard that the proposed funding model will limit access to appropriate provision for women fleeing domestic violence. Already we know that the number of places in refuges has been reduced, and we have heard practical examples of that.
We need a funding mechanism that works—and that works for women and those fleeing domestic violence—and that ensures that no woman is turned away from a refuge when she needs it. We also need a mechanism that does not impose local authority boundaries when people may need to cross those boundaries to ensure their safety and security, and that of their family. I ask the Minister and the Government to look again at a national scheme that allows for that freedom and that ensures that those services are there. I hope the Minister will take these points on board—they are clearly shared by Members from all parties that have been represented here—and seek to provide practical and positive solutions to these very real issues.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I start by congratulating the Minister on her promotion; very best wishes from a current Whip to a former Whip. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s gain is the usual channels’ loss.
I commend the Committees on this excellent report. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) participated in the inquiry during her time as a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee. I know that she is very sad not to be on that Committee anymore; she has since been lumbered with me on the Procedure Committee, which is incredibly exciting. I am conscious that it is a Thursday afternoon, so I will not seek to detain the House for very long.
I pay tribute to and thank the 13 Back Benchers who spoke for their very good speeches. They include the right hon. Members for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and Knowsley (Mr Howarth), and the hon. Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist). It has been a fairly consensual debate.
I have to say that, as a Scottish MP, I approach the issue with the view that the UK Government must ensure that their plans work for people across the UK, taking into account the specific needs of Scotland. We in the Scottish National party welcomed the UK Government’s climbdown on applying the local housing allowance to the social housing sector, which includes supported housing. I am sure that I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members in saying that the supported housing sector does amazing work supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, particularly as they seek to live independently.
The new funding model for short-term supported housing proposes devolving funding to Scotland from 2020, and it is therefore vital that the future funding model works for the people of Scotland. The report makes some sound suggestions for the future of supported housing, but I also very much hope that the UK Government will ensure that they consider the views of key stakeholders.
I have already mentioned my party’s welcome for the climbdown on the application of LHA to social housing. That announcement is positive because it comes as a major relief to renters in the social sector, as well as to supported housing providers. I pay particular tribute to my friend and colleague in the Scottish Government, Kevin Stewart MSP, who wrote, jointly with the Convention of the Scottish Local Authorities, to the Department for Work and Pensions to call for that reverse in policy.
Imposing the LHA on the social rented sector would have a devastating impact. Research carried out by the Chartered Institute of Housing found that the total rent shortfall for single under-35s alone caused by the shared accommodation rate could be £8.6 million a year. The sector has done fantastic work in campaigning against this cut and informing and lobbying Her Majesty’s Government about the major damage that it would cause to renters and providers.
It is concerning that the Government made that announcement only because they were forced to answer to the House on supported housing. Other Members have outlined how that prolonged the agony of the sector, which has faced potential disinvestment because of the uncertainty. The delay in announcing this has certainly caused undue stress to the sector and to tenants, many of whom may already be in psychologically stressful situations. It was unhelpful that the Government buried this announcement in the chaos of Prime Minister’s Question Time; it was disrespectful to those in the sector who had been waiting for clarity and had been under the impression for more than a year that their funding would be cut.
The sector saves the Government in the region of £3.5 billion per year through lower costs for the national health service and the social care and criminal justice systems. The National Housing Federation told the Work and Pensions Committee that, for older tenants, the annual saving to the taxpayer due to their reduced reliance on health and social care services was an estimated £3,000 per person, while for people with learning disabilities and mental health issues the saving was between £12,500 and £15,500. The Associated Retirement Community Operators told the Committee that people in extra care housing cost the NHS 38% less than the average population in general needs accommodation.
As I mentioned before, funding for short-term supported housing will be devolved to Scotland from April 2020 at a level equivalent to that which would otherwise have been available through the welfare system. In England, the model set out in the consultation means that this provision will be commissioned at a local level, funded through a ring-fenced grant and underpinned by a new local planning and oversight regime.
However, in Scotland we wish to work with local government and providers to consider that option alongside a broader range of potential options for distributing the funds with the wider sector over the coming months. To ensure that the amount of money devolved meets the needs of the sector, we will work with the UK Government, providers and local authorities to ensure that the data gathered on existing costs is robust and enables service users to continue to be supported.
Long-term supported housing will remain in the welfare system, and I am glad that the UK Government have committed to working with the sector to develop and deliver arrangements to ensure value for money. However, DWP officials have indicated that they still need to work to find a longer-term practical solution to keep that money within the welfare system due to the move to universal credit by 2022. It would be remiss of me at this point not to reference universal credit and its forthcoming December roll-out in Glasgow. I continue to ask the Government to halt that roll-out, given the shambles we have seen with it elsewhere.
It is vital that the future funding model works for the people of Glasgow and of Scotland. Although responsibility for housing is devolved, the UK Government’s policy on housing support has a substantial impact on Scotland’s pursuit of its housing objectives. I know that my colleagues in the Scottish Government are responding to the UK Government consultation on this, which I understand closes on Tuesday.
The report makes some sound suggestions, and I very much hope that the Government will consider the views of stakeholders. I have to say that, as a new MP, I continue to be somewhat frustrated that the Government continue to tie themselves in knots over Brexit, often at the expense of other policy areas. The fact is that their delays are having a very real impact on people—in this case, vulnerable people living on low incomes.
The burden of the Government’s policies continues to fall on other parts of the public and voluntary sectors. The UK Government must provide certainty for the social housing sector and bring forward their plans for a robust funding formula. I am conscious of time, so I conclude by saying that the report—as well as the consultation currently being held—should be considered as an opportunity genuinely to listen to the view of the community who know best about how to put this type of housing on a sustainable footing.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I join others in the House in welcoming the Minister to her place. I look forward to working with her in the future. I also add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is not in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on securing the debate on the excellent joint Select Committee report. I am sure it will be referenced for some time to come.
I suspect that it will not come as a surprise to some in the room to hear that I think the report is excellent, given that I was a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee. In that vein, I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is no longer in his place, who steered that Committee through some intensive evidence gathering sessions with their excellent chairing skills. They made possible a thorough report that enabled those different organisations and Members of Parliament to challenge this policy and have some great effect.
I also remember the work of the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in this area. It became apparent towards the end of last year, when he held a very short debate in the House, just how much concern about and affection for supported accommodation there is across the House. There was barely a seat available for people to listen to his eloquent words. It was profound, and it certainly made clear to Ministers the strength of feeling across the House on this matter.
The joint Committee report, alongside the repeated calls from the Opposition in Opposition day debates and the resolution of the House, resulted in a welcome acknowledgment by the Government that including supported housing in the LHA rate cap was wrong and in a climbdown by the Prime Minister. However, the resulting review of the funding model has left things less than straightforward—that is quite a generous description of the situation.
It has been striking to hear the similarities between the issues raised by hon. Members and the collective approach taken by providers of supported accommodation. They have been determined to speak with one voice and ensure that they are heard collectively, so that the Minister understands that some very clear flaws need addressing. Doing so will hopefully reduce her considerable burden of additional responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) was right to highlight all the other services that are available within supported accommodation. This is not about a roof over people’s heads. It is about the accommodation, but it is also about the support. We should remember that in every decision we make.
The Government plan to split their supported housing funding into three models, based on sheltered, short-term and long-term needs, and move the responsibility for funding of short-term supported housing from the main welfare system to local authorities. The Government have said that that is about providing long-term sustainable funding mechanisms that ensure quality. However, I do not think that the Government’s response goes anywhere near achieving those aims. In fact, as it stands, the proposal will lead to more insecurity for many around the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) explained clearly.
Despite repeated attempts, before the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) took her place as Minister, to entice Housing Ministers into confirming the details of future funding, there has been no movement beyond the 2020-21 commitment, but we know that the Treasury has set aside around £500 million for 2021-22. Perhaps the Minister will be rather less coy than her predecessors and end this cloaked performance, so that we can give clarity not only to the sector that provides these vital supported services but to the people who use them.
It has to be recognised that living in supported housing is not a choice. People go into supported housing out of necessity, because they have no other options available to them. I urge the Minister to be clear today and tell those people that there will be no cut in funding in the second year and no cut in funding in subsequent years. To fail again to provide certainty to this sector will only add to the delays in investment that the joint Committee report has shown are already happening.
The long-term impact of the delays will most likely be that the standards of accommodation will be lower, as the costs outstrip the benefits of ever-increasing and more demanding maintenance, and that fewer places will be available because new, more suitable accommodation will not be built. The Minister will be well aware from the contributions today that significant concerns remain about the moving of funding away from the welfare system to local authorities, meaning that funding will no longer be needs-led and no longer based on the right to help with housing costs for individuals. Nobody wants to see further financial risk burdens given to local authorities, which are already hard-pressed.
As has been mentioned—particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who has been a champion of this issue—charities such as Women’s Aid have raised concerns that these reforms are incompatible with the way the national network of refuges operates around the country. As many Members have said, two thirds of women travel outside their local authority boundaries to seek refuge care. Indeed, on my last visit to my local refuge just before Christmas—it is run by the excellent Denise Farman, who works tirelessly for the women who seek her assistance there—I met women from right across the Yorkshire and Humber region. I know that previously they have come from much further afield as well. Funding based on local need simply does not make sense. The Government must commit to work with refuge providers to redesign a funding model that represents the reality of refuges.
The definition of short-term accommodation as being for up to two years, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) mentioned before he had to leave, causes serious problems for the sector. The charity Rethink Mental Illness has said that these new funding levels will make mental health supported housing more insecure and result in fewer new supported housing services and more scale-backs or closures of current supported housing. Many of the cases that it deals with will now be classed as short term. Indeed, 50% of its supported housing services will now be classed as short term and subject to the new funding model.
We have to remember that the people in this accommodation have a range of conditions, with differences in severity and longevity and therefore very different timelines for moving out of supported housing. Does the Minister recognise the additional anxiety and stress that will be caused by adding this new ticking clock if those people are placed in what the Government term short-term accommodation? The Government must give serious thought to the views of groups such as Rethink Mental Illness and cutting the length of time that is considered short term. Let us accept that “short-term” is genuinely short. There seems to be a consensus across the House and throughout the supported accommodation sector that it takes 12 weeks to deal with emergency supported housing need, as well as universal credit and access to housing benefit.
Part of the logic in making these changes is the incompatibility of universal credit with extremely short-term supported housing. Surely if the aim of universal credit is to encourage claimants to be independent by allowing them to manage their own housing costs, this proposal for short-term supported housing goes against the very principle of universal credit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made that point far more clearly than I just managed to.
Groups such as Riverside, the YMCA, St Mungo’s and the Salvation Army—the Salvation Army rarely comes out against any Government to suggest that things are not going well—have all said that managing housing costs in a supportive environment is a vital step in the transition to independent living for those in short-term supported housing, so removing this independence could lead to longer stays in supported housing. Rather than creating a new, complicated and crudely structured system, surely the Government should look at how the universal credit system could be improved for those in short-term supported housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned the lack of move-on accommodation for people who wish to leave short-term supported accommodation. She is absolutely right about that. I was interested to learn about the additional £50 million allocated for homelessness outside of London. It is obvious to everybody that there is an increase in visible homelessness and rough sleeping outside of London. Where is the funding that was earmarked for that? When will it be allocated?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for raising the issue of tenancy security. If people are not to be treated as individuals or have any of the tenants’ rights that they may well have relied on previously, with the money going to the organisation instead, we add the pressure of a lack of housing security. That is not something we should be encouraging within the supported accommodation sector.
I have a few more questions, which are in line with some of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. What happens if a service does not receive a grant? My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood referred to what might be considered less desirable accommodation—for ex-offenders, for example—which local authorities might not always be desperate to see more of in their area. Can the residents receive housing benefit? If a service has a grant for some but not all residents, can some still receive housing benefit? What will the Minister do to ensure that organisations that do not currently deal with local authorities and do not receive, for example, Supporting People funding do not fall through the gaps in the new system?
In a statement to the House in December, the then Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), said that he was
“confident that by working with the sector we can get this right.”—[Official Report, 21 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1317.]
But here we are, with significant representations from across the sector saying that this is not right. I urge the Government to recognise that the proposal is simply not working and quickly to develop a fit-for-purpose model that represents the reality of supported housing. The conclusion next week of the consultation gives the new Minister a perfect opportunity to take those necessary steps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank everyone for their contribution; this has been a very wide-ranging conversation. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on securing this incredibly important debate on supported housing and on the work done on the issue by their Committees and, in particular, the Joint Committee.
May I start by saying how pleased I am to have been appointed the Minister responsible for housing and homelessness? I declare an interest, as my husband is a councillor on my local council, South Derbyshire District Council. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for his work on this very important issue, and wish him well in his new role.
Working towards a fair and equitable society is a priority for this Government and will be my priority. Supported housing plays a critical role in that. I know that from my own area, which has an excellent domestic abuse refuge, a wonderful older people’s housing village and specialist move-on accommodation for young people. We embrace such housing in South Derbyshire, and I am sure that many other places around the country do as well.
I am sure we all agree that supported housing is an invaluable lifeline for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It helps many people to lead independent lives or to turn their lives around, and is a vital service for a country that works for all. Across England, more than 700,000 people live in supported housing at any one time. They range from vulnerable older people to individuals with learning disabilities and physical impairments, those at risk of domestic abuse, people who are homeless and many others. It is also an investment that brings savings to other parts of the public sector, such as health and social care.
It is imperative that we continue to support the most vulnerable in society and, as the Joint Committee identified, that we have a sustainable supported housing sector that is fit for the future. I am committed to ensuring that the funding model that underpins supported housing protects and boosts supply, and that it delivers positive outcomes and a good quality of life for those who depend on it.
As hon. Members will be aware, we published the “Funding Supported Housing” policy statement on 31 October. We have worked closely with providers of supported housing on our proposals and continue to do so. The recommendations made by the Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committees were especially important to that. Our new funding approach has real benefits, many of which, I am pleased to confirm, align with the Joint Committee’s report. I remind hon. Members that we confirmed in the policy statement that we would not apply local housing allowance rates to tenants in supported housing or the wider social rented sector. In line with the Committee’s recommendation, we also announced that we would introduce the new approach from April 2020, rather than April 2019. That will ensure that vital support provided to vulnerable people is not interrupted or put in doubt, and that local government has time to implement the reforms. The Government remain committed to boosting the supply of supported housing—I am delighted to say that a second time.
Our announced model can be considered to meet different people’s needs in three respects. First, we will introduce a sheltered rent, for sheltered housing, within the welfare system. I am pleased to say that that is akin to the supported housing allowance recommended by the Committee. It is a type of social rent that will cap the amount that sheltered providers can charge for gross rent, including eligible service charges. We will work closely with the sector to set the limits at an appropriate level and, more generally, to protect provision and new supply. We will bring in existing supply at existing levels of rent and service charges. Again, we are ensuring that the service is there, at the right level.
Secondly, we said that long-term supported housing, such as permanent housing for people with learning or physical disabilities or long-term mental ill health, would remain in the welfare system. We will work with the sector to develop greater cost control. That is important; the public would expect us to do that.
Thirdly, we have taken on board the Select Committees’ recommendation that there should be a locally administered grant system for short-term accommodation. That will be introduced from April 2020. All short-term provision—for example, hostels and women’s refuges—currently funded by the welfare system will continue to be funded at the same level by local authorities in 2020.
Mr Betts
I think that there is a misunderstanding—shall I put it that way, Sir Graham? The Government have not taken on board the Select Committees’ recommendation, because the term “short term” has been moved. The recommendation actually talks about a mechanism for “very short-term accommodation”, the “emergency nature” of that provision and links to universal credit. That is not what the Government now propose.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am happy to give him clarity and succour. The short-term supported housing will be funded at current levels in 2020-21 through the ring-fenced local grant funding, and funding will continue to take account of the costs of provision and projected future need. I have to state the obvious: budgets are not set for years beyond spending review settlements. Housing costs will be funded directly by local authorities through the ring-fenced grant. I know that the sector has concerns about the longevity of the ring fence, so I want to reiterate that we are committed to retaining that for the long term, as the Joint Committee also recommended.
Helen Hayes
On the point about the longevity of the ring fence, the Minister must surely recognise that the ring fence is only as secure as the Government of the day’s commitment to it. Even if the ring fence is somehow established in legislation, it can be overturned at the will of a subsequent Government. Could she please address the point, which is of grave concern across the sector, that a ring fence is not a secure way of assuring long-term funding for the sector?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I must stress again that no Government will put in place anything beyond a spending review period. It is not right or proper to do so. That is normal business.
Helen Hayes
I thank the Minister for giving way again, but she simply makes the point that the ring fence provides no long-term assurance to the sector. Does she agree that it is inherently a short to medium-term measure, and that the sector cannot therefore be guaranteed that the ring fence will be there for the long term, as she indicates is her intention?
Mrs Wheeler
I am afraid that the hon. Lady misunderstands me, because the long term will be ring-fenced with local authorities. The whole point about this is that we want to grow the supply of sheltered and supported housing accommodation, because the Government consider it very important in looking after the most vulnerable people in society in future. In the same vein, I reassure hon. Members that the amount of grant funding for this part of the sector to 2020 will continue to take account of the costs of provision, and growth of future provision.
Better oversight and value for money are an important part of our reforms. The Joint Committee was keen that there should be a set of national standards. We are consulting on a national statement of expectation, which will set out what we want good supported housing to look like.
We will work with local government on how it plans future provision in England as it assesses current and future need. Before implementation, we will issue more detailed guidance, to support local authorities in monitoring this provision in their area. We are carrying out a full new burdens assessment to identify how much additional administrative budget local authorities will need to deliver the new funding approach. We are working closely with local authorities and the Local Government Association to do that.
Under the short-term model, all funded provision will be commissioned by the local authority. This means providers will need to meet local authority quality standards. Furthermore, under the new model for sheltered and extra care, the social housing regulator will monitor compliance with this new system. We are empowering tenants by obliging providers to publish breakdowns of their service charges. Where tenants feel that these are unreasonable, they can take action. We also continue to work with the sector to identify ways to drive up standards, improve outcomes and share best practice.
I have mentioned a number of areas where our conclusions coincide with those of the Committee, but one recommendation on which we are not aligned is that on the creation of a bespoke model for refuges. We recognise how important that is, but we believe that a local approach will ensure the best outcome for domestic abuse services. This is because local authorities are best placed to understand their residents’ needs.
Melanie Onn
Does the Minister not accept the statistic, provided by Women’s Aid, that two thirds of women come from outside their local authority area?
Mrs Wheeler
From my experience, I know that many people move around and prefer to go to a refuge that is not next door. There is then a knock-on effect: that local authority takes on local housing, unless they later find somewhere else that the person in the refuge wants to go to. The effect of this is that all the way around the country, local authorities take their fair share, and they know that and work on that basis.
Sandy Martin
The Minister paints a picture of all constituencies having similar socioeconomic backgrounds, but women’s refuges are not evenly distributed; nor are hostels for young people or those with substance abuse issues. The Minister will probably find that the majority of such buildings and such provision is in urban areas. Rural parts of the country often rely on the provision in urban areas, yet do not financially contribute to it.
Mrs Wheeler
Without prolonging the conversation, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that certain areas in the west country have gone for an alternative model of safe houses and havens. It is not that there are not places for people to go; it is just done in a different way.
Our approach frees vulnerable women from meeting house costs themselves. It empowers them to focus on what matters most in repairing their life. However, I am aware that the quality of service varies significantly. This is why we are conducting a thorough review of domestic abuse services. Many of you have an interest in this, as do I. I ask that you encourage your local authorities, service providers and others to engage fully in the review. It will report to Ministers—that is, to me—this summer. I look forward to receiving those submissions and going through them personally. My hon. Friends Marcus Jones and Caroline Dinenage met several supported housing providers and representatives, as did Lord Best, Lilian Greenwood, Jess Phillips and Victoria Atkins, following the announcement of the funding model. Naturally, I look forward to continuing this engagement, and listening to and working with the sector.
I very much appreciate the time and work that Select Committee members have put into the “Future of supported housing” inquiry. I also value the opportunity to attend this debate and hear further views on the funding model. I am confident that our new proposals will offer certainty to providers, so that they can invest in new supply, particularly of sheltered and extra care housing, where demand is expected to grow. As was mentioned, Home Group has given the green light to funding for new supported housing schemes—a £50 million scheme is not a small scheme. However, we know that there is work left to do to achieve the best outcomes for the many who live in supported housing.
I want to thank the Joint Committee for its inquiry. There were so many areas of future work that we can agree on.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for summing up. The consultation finishes next week. Will she confirm that, in line with the previous consultation, her Department will listen very carefully and reflect on the proposals from providers? Will she also say on what sort of timetable she envisages her Department providing a response to that consultation?
Mrs Wheeler
Absolutely. Thank you: you have given me a great opportunity to mention one more thing. We have stressed so often today, and in the Government’s official response to the inquiry paper, that the consultation, which finishes next week, on Tuesday 23 January, gives us a real opportunity to go through everything for the summer. We will then be able to report back, but I am sure that there will be an opportunity to nail this much more quickly than that.
Again, I thank the Joint Committee for its inquiry. We agree on so many areas. I look forward to working with it on tweaks to make things safer across the whole country. I look forward to working with the devolved Administrations as well.
Mr Betts
This has been a wide-ranging, well informed debate. It is a great credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that they produced a report that not only commanded the complete support of two Select Committees, but has wider support across the House and outside it, among providers and others. That has been absolutely clear.
At the beginning, I asked the Minister to address three fundamental issues. There is still a bit more work to do on how the cost controls over longer-term housing will be applied, and I am sure that we will continue to explore that. We have a difference on women’s refuges. It is not so much a matter of people choosing to go outside the area; they are often forced outside the area to a place where they have no local connection. That issue needs to be addressed nationally, and we need further discussion and debate on those matters of concern.
I come back to the issue of short-term accommodation. As I said, I had a briefing from St Mungo’s this morning and a phone call with Riverside, which has produced a joint briefing with the YMCA and the Salvation Army. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) rightly read out an even longer list of providers with concerns—a very long list. The Government have generally misunderstood or misinterpreted—at this stage I will say unintentionally—the recommendation about emergency accommodation. The words in the report were “very short-term accommodation”, but the Government have applied that to all accommodation of less than two years, which is not right and not what the recommendation actually states. The National Housing Federation has been talking to all its members and puts the matter succinctly:
“The definition of short-term services in the consultation paper is very wide and this should be tightened so that it is clear that the local system covers short-term emergency accommodation where people stay for a period of weeks rather than months.”
Were the Government to say, “We’re changing the definition so that accommodation funded through the benefit system is extended to include all accommodation, except that for very short-term emergencies of up to 12 weeks, and that very short-term emergency accommodation will be funded through the ring-fenced grant”, we would give fairly unanimous support straightaway. I ask the Minister to go back and look again at that particular issue. It is of real concern to providers, and I think that the Government have simply got it wrong. There is no reason to take accommodation of a year, 18 months or even six months out of the welfare system. Short-term emergency accommodation should be the only accommodation funded by the ring-fenced grant. If the Minister would at least listen to that, take it away and consider it, and perhaps make the change, we could get a much better funding system.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and am very glad he is putting that on the record, because it is important that we all talk about the same thing. We listened carefully to the views of the sector in the previous consultation and through the sector task and finish groups, which said that on balance, this timeframe reflects the nature of support provided and an individual’s journey and outcomes. We are, however, absolutely clear that we continue to listen, and will consider feedback in the current consultation. I hope that puts his mind at rest.
Mr Betts
It is helpful that the Minister is still listening. I obviously do not know who is on the task and finish group, but I do know the number of providers that are clearly raising concerns; the National Housing Federation encapsulated in one sentence, which I read out. If the Minister listens to that, reflects and makes the change that has been suggested, we will have a much better system—a system that the providers, in the widest sense, will be happy with, and that will encourage the new investment that we all want.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Before I put the question, I remind all Members that colleagues should be referred to not by name, but by constituency, and that they should be addressed in the third person. I did not want to break anybody’s flow during their speech, but I hope that is helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the First Joint Report of the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee, Future of supported housing, HC 867, Session 2016-17, and the Government response, Cm 9522.
Written Statements
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Departmental Contingent Liability Notification: HM Land Registry Digital Mortgage Service
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a new digital mortgage service, to be launched by HM Land Registry (HMLR) in 2018, and a resulting contingent liability.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances. It is also normal for the Department to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
HMLR’s new digital mortgage service will enable borrowers to sign mortgage deeds digitally, speed up the re-mortgage process and improve the customer experience. A new liability risk arises with this service because HMLR will certify the identity of a borrower when that person provides a digital signature in advance of registration. This liability sits outside of the scope of HMLR’s existing statutory compensation scheme (schedule 8, Land Registration Act 2002).
The risk of the new liability occurring is considered low. The new process, where the borrower’s identity has to be verified through GOV.UK Verify combined with HMLR’s independent security processes, should in fact reduce the overall risk of fraud. To date GOV.UK Verify has not identified a single example of fraud despite in excess of 1.25 million citizens’ accounts having been created using the GOV.UK Verify service.
As with the existing indemnity, any costs incurred from this extension will be covered by HMLR’s resources as a trading fund.
Subject to no objections being received, I intend to authorise the proposal to undertake contingent liability for the digital mortgage service, after the usual 14 parliamentary sitting days.
The Government will be taking further steps to improve the home buying and selling process, following the publication last year of a call for evidence.
[HCWS409]
UK Military Support
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I wish to inform the House of the Government’s intent to deploy three CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopters to Mali to provide logistical support to French operations in the Sahel region, following French requests for additional support for Operation Barkhane. This deployment forms an important element of our agreement at the Sandhurst Summit to work more closely with the French to counter terrorism and instability in the Sahel, and strengthen our co-operation in this region. We will continue to co-ordinate the deployment with the French and update the House in due course.
[HCWS413]
Foreign Affairs Council: 22 January
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 January. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.
The agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) is expected to include a breakfast with the president of the European Investment Bank as well as discussions on the post-Cotonou agreement, Libya and the middle east peace process (MEPP). There will be a lunch with the President of the Palestinian National Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas.
The HRVP is expected to cover Iran, conclusions on Iraq, Zimbabwe, the integrated approach of the EU global strategy and EU priorities at the Council of Europe in her introductory remarks.
Post-Cotonou
Ministers will discuss developments in the negotiations on a post-2020 agreement with the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) which will replace the current Cotonou agreement.
Libya
The EUVP will debrief on the outcomes from the European Union-African Union-United Nations (EU-AU-UN) taskforce meeting that took place on 14 December and outline the next steps. A substantial discussion on Libya will follow covering politics, migration, counter-terrorism and common security and defence policy. Ministers will discuss the latest political developments, including obstacles in the peace process, perhaps with particular reference to the challenges facing the UN Special Representative Ghassan Salame.
We will be encouraging EU members to continue supporting the UN-led process and will continue to offer our support to the EU-AU-UN taskforce.
MEPP
Ministers will host Palestinian President Abbas for a lunch and discuss prospects for the MEPP, including longstanding EU support for a negotiated two-state solution and EU support for Palestinian reconciliation.
Council conclusions
The FAC is expected to adopt conclusions on Iraq, Zimbabwe and the integrated approach of the EU global strategy.
[HCWS408]
Health Technology Update
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
On Monday 15 January 2018 EMIS Group plc (EMIS) notified NHS Digital regarding under-reporting of issues with their general practice clinical systems provided under the General Practice Systems of Choice (GPSoC) contract.
The Department of Health and Social Care was informed by NHS Digital, which manages the contract, on Tuesday 16 January. EMIS has today informed the London Stock Exchange of this matter.
EMIS’s chief medical officer has confirmed that an internal clinical safety review found no issues of concern. A review by NHS Digital’s clinical safety team has found no evidence that patient safety has been put at risk.
NHS Digital is conducting a detailed investigation to establish both the cause and accountability for the under-reporting with the full co-operation of EMIS. Any settlement or other actions will be dependent on the outcome of this process. NHS Digital will also consider what lessons can be learned more widely.
I will provide a further update to Parliament once this important work is complete.
[HCWS406]
Criminal Finances: EU Directive on Fraud and Counterfeiting
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government have decided that the UK will not opt in to the directive on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.
The UK’s domestic legislation is already compliant with the majority of the directive’s measures, and in relation to the offences and sentences set out in the directive, the UK goes further than the standards set within the directive for:
The effective co-operation for the fraudulent use of payment instruments, and;
The preparatory offences, the use of information systems and other tools to support fraudulent use.
Following careful consideration we have concluded that there would be no benefit to the UK opting in to this measure.
The UK strongly supports international efforts to tackle fraud. The UK works closely with other EU member states and will continue to do so despite the decision not to opt in. The UK has consistently advocated that international co-operation is required to tackle fraud, and we are committed to supporting member states, and other countries, in this regard.
[HCWS410]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 30 November 2017) 7 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 30 November 2017) 6 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 2 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 10 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 0 The number of current subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (as of 30 November 2017) 7
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The most recent TRG meetings took place on 4, 6, 26 and 27 September. The next round of TRGs will take place during December 2017.
On 11 October 2017 a TPIM subject was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment following an earlier guilty plea to two breaches of the association measure of the TPIM notice.
The case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. LF [2017] EWHC 26859 (Admin) was heard at the High Court between 17 and 21 July 2017. In a judgment dated 30 October 2017 Mrs Justice Laing upheld the Secretary of State’s decision to impose a TPIM notice on LF. In the same judgment Mrs Justice Laing ordered a minor variation to LF’s police reporting requirement. This judgment can be found at www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/2685.html.
[HCWS411]
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Together with the senior judiciary, the Government are committed to modernising the justice system. HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s long-term reform programme is already delivering benefits by making access to justice quicker and easier while ensuring fairness. HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s £1 billion reform programme is ambitious, ensuring justice is accessible but proportionate and making use of the technology available in the modern world. It will provide modern IT and processes, and focused services to support those who require court services. It covers all jurisdictions and touches every aspect of the system, including making more effective use of its physical places, spaces and buildings.
Courts and tribunals estate
It is important that when the programme of reform is complete we have the right buildings in the right places that can take full advantage of the opportunities that modernisation brings. They should be flexible, efficient and offer the best possible environment for those who seek justice, and our approach should reflect the greater use of digital services.
I am, today, announcing the publication of six separate, but related, consultations about the HM Courts and Tribunals Service estate.
Consultation on future estates strategy
The first consultation, “Fit for the future: transforming the courts and tribunals estate”, provides an outline of reform activities which are either under way or planned. It outlines the three core principles behind our approach—ensuring access to justice, providing value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring efficiency in the long term— and a proposed approach to future consultations on changes to the estate as HMCTS reform initiatives deliver results.
Consultations on court closure proposals
While consideration of the demands on the courts and tribunals estate in the context of reform is important, we also need to assess the existing estate to make sure it is efficient and offers value for money to taxpayers now. To this end, a key consideration in management of the estate is that we only operate buildings that we need, eliminating duplication and overlapping service provision, with the savings recycled back into the reform programme.
I am therefore today announcing five separate consultations on proposals to close eight courts. These proposals are being made under the existing courts and tribunals estates principles and current processes and workloads.
The courts are:
Banbury magistrates’ and county court and Maidenhead magistrates’ court (in a single consultation for the court estate in the Thames valley),
Cambridge magistrates’ court,
Chorley magistrates’ court and Fleetwood magistrates’ court (in a single consultation for the court estate in Lancashire),
Northallerton magistrates’ court, and
Wandsworth county court and Blackfriars Crown court (in a single consultation for the court estate in London).
All consultations will begin on 18 January 2018 and run for 10 weeks. A response to the consultations will be published following proper consideration of all views submitted.
A copy of the consultation documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS412]
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy 2017-18
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy based on their relative market share for the purpose of meeting the costs of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme (DMPS). This is in line with the commitment by the insurance industry to fund a scheme of last resort for sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.
I can announce today that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2017-18, the fourth year of the DMPS, is £33.5 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2018.
Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their payment amount (i.e. their share of the levy), together with how the amount was calculated and payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.
I am pleased that the DMPS has seen three successful years of operation, assisting many sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma. The third annual report for the scheme was published on 30 November 2017 and is available on the gov.uk website. I hope that members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.
[HCWS407]
Grand Committee
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education: Modern Foreign Languages
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the importance of modern foreign language teaching in schools and universities, and of the impact of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union on the sustainability of that teaching.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages, which is supported by the British Council, and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. I thank all noble Lords in advance for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s reply. I am also grateful to the House of Lords Library for its excellent briefing pack.
Her Majesty’s Government have a great track record of saying positive things about learning foreign languages and of taking important initiatives to back up their fine words. As recently as last November, Schools Minister Nick Gibb said that the Government were committed to,
“remaining open to the world after we leave the EU and to becoming even more global and internationalist in our outlook. Improving the take-up and teaching of modern foreign languages in our schools … is an important part of achieving that goal”.
He added that there were,
“business, cultural and educational benefits to learning a language”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/17; cols. 579-80.]
I would only add diplomacy, defence and security to the Minister’s list of benefits.
Important initiatives taken include making a foreign language part of the national curriculum for key stage 2; the EBacc has boosted take-up of language GCSEs; over 100 language teacher trainer scholarships have been awarded; and £10 million of government money has been invested in the Mandarin Excellence Programme. But—and I am sure noble Lords could all hear that but coming—despite all this, language teaching and learning in our schools and universities are in deep crisis. In 2004, languages became optional after the age of 14, reducing GCSE take-up from nearly 80% to half that. A compulsory language as part of the EBacc managed to get that back to 49%, but that may now be in reverse as entries fell in 2017 by 7.3%, and EBacc has had little, if any, impact on continued take-up post-16. Numbers taking French A-level have declined by one-third and for German by one-half. Just in case any noble Lords should think that that is not such a bad thing these days, when we need Mandarin more than we need French, I draw attention to the recent report from the British Council, which said that the top five languages needed by the UK for our prosperity and influence post Brexit are Spanish, Mandarin, French, Arabic and German.
The decline at A-level has the obvious knock-on effect for applications for MFL degrees at university, which have dropped by 57% in 10 years. Over 50 universities have scrapped some or all of their MFL degree courses. Uncertainty over the UK’s continued participation in the Erasmus+ programme is one reason for the drop in applications. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how important this scheme is for giving students of all disciplines, not just the linguists, the opportunity to improve language skills and develop an international and cross-cultural mindset. A study in the US and British Academy research show that that employers rate these skills at least as highly, or even more highly, than expertise in STEM subjects. Graduates who have spent a year abroad are 23% less likely to be unemployed than those who have not. Will the Minister give an assurance that after Brexit the UK, along with Norway and Switzerland, will continue to be part of Erasmus+ beyond 2020, especially as the European Commission plans to double participation in this scheme by 2025?
Erasmus+ is also a vital part of the supply chain for MFL teachers. The existing shortage risks becoming much worse because an estimated 35% of MFL teachers and lecturers are non-UK EU nationals, as are 85% of language classroom assistants. Unless they are guaranteed residency status post Brexit, MFL teaching in our schools could collapse. We are not producing enough languages graduates ourselves to meet the shortage, which the Department for Education estimated at 3,500 if the Government are to meet their EBacc target. We know that EBacc figures would shoot up if only more pupils were doing a language at GCSE, so it is very much in the Government’s own interests to protect and improve the supply of MFL teachers. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any firm data on the numbers of current MFL teachers from the EU? What proportion of applicants for initial teacher training in MFL and what percentage of MFL teachers leaving the profession are EU citizens? We have heard an awful lot recently about the dramatic reduction in the number of nurses coming from the EU to work in the NHS; it would be sensible to have equivalent data on MFL teachers to help shape the kind of training and recruitment programmes we might need to plug the gaps.
Can the Minister comment on the conflict between the EBacc and the Progress 8 system for measuring schools’ performance at GCSE? Languages are not compulsory under Progress 8 and there have been reports that some schools are using Progress 8 to avoid doing languages at all. That undermines the EBacc. Can the Minister say what specific action the Government can take to address this? I would also like to know how the Government intend to respond to evidence, most recently from the latest Language Trends Survey, that pupils in state schools—especially those in deprived areas, and including primary schools—are benefiting least from the advantages of learning a foreign language. Lower take-up at GCSE correlates with regions of poor productivity and low skill levels. For example, in the north-east in 2016, only 43% of pupils sat a GCSE in a language, compared with 75% in some London boroughs. Only one-third of state schools employ a language assistant, compared with 73% of independent schools. Only 30% of state schools still run exchange trips with a host family; 77% of independent schools do so. There is a correlation between pupils on free school meals and low MFL take-up, and pupils in deprived areas are increasingly allowed to drop their language after only two years in secondary school, or even withdrawn from language classes altogether. How does any of this help the social mobility that the Government say they are committed to?
I believe we need a cross-government national languages recovery programme, because the crisis is not just for the DfE to sort out. Many departments have a critical stake in making good our languages deficit as a nation: Justice, Health, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Media, International Development and, of course, Trade and Industry. We need more home-grown linguists and to rely less on importing our language skills. This challenge predated the EU referendum, of course, but the reality of Brexit, with the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a leader in global free trade and more influential on the world stage, makes it all the more urgent. As I said last week in the debate on the industrial strategy, speaking only English in the 21st century is as much a disadvantage as speaking no English. Language skills are a key enabler of success and need to be woven into all ages and stages of education and training, including apprenticeships and technical education.
Finally, will the Minister undertake to initiate discussions across government to kick-start a new strategic plan to rebuild the UK’s language skills? Will he support the proposal to designate a Minister with cross-government responsibility for languages, to ensure that, this time, decisive leadership achieves a step change in language learning in schools, FE and HE? The education sector could learn a lot from looking at the positive initiatives already being taken by the Foreign Office and the Army, for example. The Government could do a huge amount by selling the case for languages to students, parents, head teachers and employers alike. By no means does everyone need to be a specialist linguist, but the soft power advantage in the 21st century belongs to the multilingual citizen and nation, not the monolingual Brits of the past who thought that all they had to do to be understood was shout more loudly in English.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for introducing the debate and giving us an opportunity to consider this issue. At a time when there has never been more need to communicate internationally and globally, I was appalled to learn that entries for GCSE modern foreign languages have almost halved and that 50 modern foreign language departments across higher education have closed in the past 15 years. The noble Baroness has given us more detailed statistics on that. It was always a problem to recruit sufficient Brits to work in the European Union institutions because of the lack of adequate language skills. For this reason, in recent years we have fallen well below our quotas in those institutions.
Now more than ever we need foreign language skills, not only for the important and wide-ranging trade negotiations that lie ahead in the post-Brexit world— because of my particular interest in Latin America, I emphasise the importance of Spanish and Portuguese in this context—but also to sustain the tourist industry on which I foresee the United Kingdom becoming more and more dependent. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that his department has taken on board the checklist created by the APPG on Modern Languages, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and of which I am a member, and that it will be pursued.
In the short time available I wish to raise two specific issues. The first is one I have raised before as a suggestion to encourage young people to acknowledge the benefit of studying foreign languages. It is not only to use them directly as teachers, interpreters and translators, but as an additional asset to other professional qualifications. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers and many other professionals can add to the value of their work if they speak another language or languages reasonably fluently. As a lawyer, I am an example of that. I believe that the Government could give a lead on this by ensuring that application forms for Civil Service jobs in all departments include a box asking which other languages the applicant can speak. This would at least enable people to realise that the ability to speak another language is a plus factor. Can the Minister indicate whether this happens across the board, or indeed in any department other than the Foreign Office?
The second issue relates to what I consider to be a hidden treasure in the United Kingdom. It is a fact that millions of British citizens living here speak, for example, Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali, Farsi or Arabic as their first language. In any assessment of modern foreign language teaching, do the Government take this into account and in what ways are they building on that resource?
I would like to have pursued other aspects which were raised in the excellent briefing and in the noble Baroness’s introduction, in particular emphasising the importance of the Erasmus programme, but I feel sure that many of these issues will be raised during the debate.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for introducing the debate and for her ongoing commitment over many years to this subject. I think that we are making progress, but there is still a lot more to do. I accept absolutely the premise of the debate, which is that whatever happens to our relationship with the European Union, we are going to need more mastery of languages, not less.
It is now almost two decades since the Government of whom I was a member transferred the power to decide whether key stage 4 students should learn a modern foreign language from central government to head teachers. To be honest, I did not think that 16 years later we would still be in this position, and that is what I want to address today. The vision we had when making that change was not to be where we are now. It has often been seen to be a battle whether modern foreign languages should be made compulsory right through school. A lot of time and energy has been wasted on that which might have been better used to address other issues. The evidence for that is twofold. The EBaccs arrived. Given the consequences of not getting EBaccs for the school, it was almost compulsory to have modern foreign languages. Fewer than 50 per cent of students have actually taken a language. Even though we have got almost compulsory modern foreign languages in key stage 4, the drop-off at A-level is quite significant. If you look at other difficult and challenging linear subjects, such as maths, physics, the science subjects and computing, we have not seen that. We have seen either a steadying of A-level entrances, or a slight increase over recent years. I have come to the conclusion that solving this is not a battle about whether it is compulsory, it is about what we are doing in the classroom and how we are teaching modern foreign languages. One thing in the briefing that quite saddened me was that secondary school students saw the need for modern foreign languages but chose not to study them because they did not like the lessons. They were not enjoying them. That is not a criticism of the brilliant teachers who try to do their best in difficult circumstances.
My points to the Minister are that I absolutely still believe that the emphasis should still be on primary level. When you look at primary level, the lack of consistency guarantees that secondary level does not stand a chance of getting it right. In every other national curriculum subject, they link with primary. They know what they are building on. They know what the next stage is. I really like the idea of a language recovery programme. That is because it implies we are going to do something different, that we have got the determination but we are not looking back—we are learning from what is taking place.
My final comments would be: concentrate on primary level. I would make it compulsory for primary. I would not make it an entitlement. There is a big difference between the two. I would concentrate on pedagogy. What did we learn from the Mandarin experiment where it is eight hours a week rather than 30 minutes a week? Is that a better way of teaching modern foreign languages? As ever, we should invest in the professional development of those who are working with our key stage 1 and key stage 2 children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating this debate. My mother was German. She met my father at the end of the Second World War. He was in the Royal Scots Fusiliers. My mother came from a large family with sisters and brothers who settled all over Europe. I have cousins in Switzerland, Holland and Austria. My cousins and their children all speak immaculate English. Why? Because it is compulsory at school. They start learning a language at the age of five. That spreads all the way through. We can be quite negative about the facts and figures. Let us remind ourselves of those, because they need to be reiterated quite often. GCSE entries have almost halved since 1997. Fewer than half students entered for maths take a modern foreign language. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made the point that those doing sciences or professional degrees are less likely to do a modern foreign language. This has led to an inevitable 57% drop in undergraduate numbers and—this is the most frightening figure—an average of three modern foreign language departments closing each year. Over 16,000 UK students are involved in the Erasmus programme. I hope the new Universities Minister in the other place will be more enthusiastic about sustaining our participation than his predecessor, Jo Johnson.
The decline in the number of students taking A-levels has reached a dangerous level. But let us be positive. Primary schools are now teaching modern foreign languages. Teachers are, in many schools, reporting great successes. But if we are to really make that work, it has to start at the age of five. It also has to link in with secondary schools. What happens is that you get children from primary schools up to a proficient level in, say, French or Spanish. They transfer to the secondary school and the secondary school does a different subject. All that work in developing the subject does not get realised. I do not have an easy answer, but I do know that is one of the major problems. The other problem in primary schools is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, the need to have more graduate teachers who have a modern foreign language as their degree. As we have heard previously, that is becoming less and less likely, because departments are closing down. There needs to be a training programme for those teachers and also for teaching assistants. Many primary schools use teaching assistants to do conversational work with groups of children. Whatever happens in any dreadful Brexit process, it is important that for the future prosperity of the country, we get this right.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for what has been said in the previous four speeches, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I am a fellow officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages. We are very proud of the noble Baroness because of her leadership and all the unstinting work that she has done with the British Council to promote this issue. It is very easy and tempting still for foolish people in Britain to regard it as a marginal subject of no consequence whatever; it is extremely important. Even if we want the subject just for cultural and intellectual reasons, there is also the reality that we lose business at the margin all over the world because we do not bother to have proper language teaching and learning in our schools and universities, and in business.
That is unlike in other countries. I admire the supreme modesty and efficiency of the German population, most of whom speak better English than we do when we go over there. When I try to insist that I do a speech in German—because I speak German myself—they always say, “Oh, no, do it in English because we can follow it easily”. It is a remarkable achievement in a country like that, of 82 million people, that they have been so caring about this subject.
I personally am lucky because—like the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others, I think—I always found languages extremely easy. Therefore, I mastered at a very early age the main European languages plus Russian and did not find them difficult for some bizarre, rather nerdy reason; I found them very easy and exciting. I started quite late, being six, seven or eight before I started reading some French. Even infants, if they get the access through their parents, can start learning languages as if they are games, puzzles, contests and competitions. They really enjoy that. It is one reason why children in Britain are learning Mandarin with incredible proficiency at a very young age. Spanish is a very easy language. As we know, it is completely phonetic, except where it is indicated with an appropriate symbol. It is therefore easier for those languages to be grasped at an early age.
However, they are all important. Those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, show the priorities but also the need not to neglect other languages—I am glad that she and others in this debate have mentioned the Indian subcontinent as well. It is interesting to see how the Chinese have dealt with learning English. It is now a huge learning system in China, a country that need not have bothered because it was very committed to its own activities.
It is important for business to take these things up inside companies and with the trade unions. It has always been difficult to persuade people when they say, “Oh, well, it is not my subject. I’m concerned with the job and the work we do”. But languages is not just at the margin; it is intrinsic to the very salvation of this country. Bad effects are coming along from this Brexit nightmare—and it is not just a debate about interesting possibilities and options; it is a total nightmare for this country. Therefore, one of the best things to do is to stay in the EU and encourage a language learning programme with it as well as with others.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I want to say something about the general importance of the subject, and then some specific things about business and primary. The noble Baroness has set out a lot of the data, which is the foundation.
In my tradition there is a myth called the Tower of Babel, which many of your Lordship will know, which points to the reality of the human condition being that we live in a massive number of language groups. That is either a challenge for conflict or an opportunity for co-operation. The key is for language therefore to be used creatively.
The late Helmut Schmidt, the former Chancellor of West Germany, wrote that nobody should go into politics unless they can speak at least two languages—so they would have to join the noble Baroness’s group. That is important because he meant that we need to understand not just our own culture but how other people think through their language, so that they can look at you, your business activities and your political values—whatever it is. Communication depends on understanding language not just in your space but from somebody else’s point of view.
Before we just think, “Well, we’re all English; we just speak one language”, as the noble Lord has just referred to, we should remember that we are all linguistic anyway. We speak the language of the head and the language of the heart, the language of consciousness and the language of unconsciousness. There is a universal language, which religion, sport and compassion unite us in, across spoken languages. We are all linguistic creatures, so we can aim high. We do not have to think this is just about a few people patching the thing up as we try and struggle against collapse.
I will give a little example of why it is so important, again from my own discipline. In medieval times, a word in the Bible was translated as “do penance”, meaning in relation to an institution. The Reformation discovered the word actually means not “do penance” but “repent”, which is a state of the heart. That is a totally different understanding of the language, from an institutional frame to the individual having values and aspirations. That is why it is important to get language right and to understand it.
We need a strategic policy to put languages at the heart of our learning. I support everything that has been said about primary schools. I have a granddaughter called Lila, who at nursery school, at the age of three or four, was learning Spanish and was so excited about it. She could say the words. There is something in all human beings that can be developed for language, and we have to press on and do that.
I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that there could be a strategy that puts language at the heart of learning, both to grow human beings more fully and to equip us to take our part in an international world of business, politics and values. Without that, we will be very impoverished.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, first I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, who is tireless on this subject. I also want to follow her in giving credit to the Government for what has already been achieved. But as all noble Lords have said, there are huge challenges still to overcome.
I have one big point to make here, following what the right reverend Prelate said. Why does this matter? First, the idea that English is the international language is a massive exaggeration. There are billions of people who do not speak English. It is actually shocking arrogance to say that everyone else should learn our language because we cannot be bothered to learn theirs. But above all, speaking a foreign language does much more than give you the linguistic ability. It opens your mind to other cultures and opens a door to other mindsets and to understanding how other people live and think and act. It is this which lubricates international trade and international relations.
This is absolutely vital in today’s world, with rapid globalisation in trade, finance and investment, with growing nationalism, with the emergence of great economies in China, the Indian subcontinent, Latin America and Africa, and of course with Brexit now taking place. We cannot afford to be inward-looking and insular. The UK has a population of 65 million people. Russia has 140 million. The other 27 members of the EU have 270 million. South America and Latin America have over half a billion. Africa has more than 1 billion, India 1.2 billion and China 1.3 billion. The UK has to wake up.
My message to the Government and to the Minister is this. Yes, please carry on doing all you can in your school reforms to embed still further the learning of foreign languages in our schools and other institutions. But on top of that, we have to think big. So many of our young people are by instinct internationally minded. It should not be difficult to engage with them so they see the benefit, the stimulus and the joy of going to another country and talking its language, sharing their experiences and creating relationships and bonds of mutual understanding. So let us get some of Britain’s most creative minds on to this.
This is the challenge that has been raised by the noble Baroness—we have to change our thinking big time. It cannot just be the responsibility of the Department for Education or of the Government alone. Britain is at a pivotal moment in its history. The world is going to change in ways we cannot even imagine. Yes, we need practical policies, but we also need inspiring leadership, imagination and passion.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to join in this debate on the teaching of modern foreign languages. I too have been a language teacher, not just of foreign languages but of English. Having heard others speak, I can certainly support the fact that in trade and in doing work with people in other countries, it is essential to have a foreign language. As somebody said to me the other day, you can buy in English but you cannot sell in English, so I hope that we will take this forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has already said, provision has dramatically reduced in schools, universities and higher education. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, and I agree that it is particularly concerning that so many children in schools were discouraged from taking foreign languages and that those schools were in some of the most deprived areas of the country. It seems to be a huge injustice that, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, the values of learning a foreign language have been denied to many children not only because they were not encouraged but because they were discouraged from taking a foreign language as part of the drive to raise standards.
In addition to what has been said already, I support compulsory language learning in primary schools. However, if we are to have a national language recovery programme, we will have to move very quickly, increasing capacity within schools and universities, increasing the number of teachers and changing the culture that somehow we in this nation do not really need to speak foreign languages. As someone who has taught adults, I would also say that we need to incentivise people in work. I think that employers are very keen to have their employees speak foreign languages—more so in view of Brexit. Something like £45 billion is lost to GDP through the lack of language learning skills.
When I taught English as a foreign language in France, there were many incentives to learn a foreign language. Employees were given the time to do so by their employers, they were given help with payments, and the Government backed a national scheme. That was some time ago—lots of people in France now speak English. However, people took that up, and it is a fallacy to say that people in adult life cannot learn languages. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about methodologies in schools, but there are now many ways of learning languages. I know many adults who have learned foreign languages online, doing it in their spare time. That is particularly attractive to young people, who I understand are more and more motivated to learn foreign languages because they do not believe that they were very well taught in school.
Therefore, I would definitely back a national language recovery scheme. I very much hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement on that but, from my point of view, I would add: do not let us just leave it to schools and teachers; let us get the adults learning as well.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on enabling this important debate. I endorse what has been said by previous speakers about the importance of language teaching in the light of Brexit and the potential challenges to sustaining it. I particularly pick up the point made about our security and defence interests, which are definitely reliant on our ability to communicate and understand other countries. Without a language base, that becomes a very difficult proposition.
I want to draw particular attention to the international baccalaureate in this context. The IB is most familiar to many of us as a stretching curriculum and examination for sixth formers, but in fact it is very much more than that. There are IB programmes for all stages of school education, from primary right through to sixth form. I am pleased to declare an interest as a governor of a state academy that uses the IB to good effect throughout the school, using the middle years programme and the sixth-form programme, and moving towards using a primary school programme for the IB.
The UK is moving out of the EU and into a new relationship with countries in Europe and beyond. In that context, the educational philosophy and principles of the IB—a global outlook supported by strong language teaching, and the development of open-minded and inquiring thinkers who are equipped with the critical skills to succeed in the world—are more important than ever. We need that approach if we are to succeed in this new and challenging environment. The IB curriculum provides that in a way that is acceptable to children right through the ability spectrum, from the less able to the most academic.
I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will encourage more schools, including those that serve less-privileged communities, to see the importance of IB principles and take the opportunity to promote them through adopting IB programmes. The school where I am a governor started as a school in serious difficulty. It rebooted itself, including by adopting the IB principles and has now moved to having an outstanding status. Part of the reason for that, I think, is the aspiration and the vision that the IB gives of being part of a global community of learning. That outward-looking approach is something that many of our schools would benefit from in the current climate.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as a modern language graduate and one-time teacher, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for this timely debate and for her energetic support for modern languages. It is an enthusiasm which I share.
The UK does not have a proud record of speaking other languages, although our diplomatic and security services have been world leaders, often in somewhat obscure languages, and we have certainly seen excellence in academic departments and in parts of business, which have proved that the British do have the capacity, if not the will, to enjoy languages other than English. The position in schools and universities—as we have heard—is close to critical, as various school initiatives reduced the importance of languages, which fed straight through to diminished university departments and thence into fewer committed language teachers. The discouragement of EU national staff will make the situation even worse.
As members of the EU, we have been sheltered to a degree on the need for European languages, as English was deemed one of the languages of choice. But there will be no need for our European neighbours to continue to give such priority to English if it is no longer one of the member languages. A while ago, I asked a Business Minister whether linguists were included on trade trips and received the answer, “It isn’t necessary; they all speak English”. Maybe that is true around the table, but what about the informal talk and exchanges away from negotiations and the snippets of gossip or insight which might be deal-makers? What about the courtesy of speaking to people in their own languages, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, said? And what about Willy Brandt’s famous saying, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Janke:
“If I am selling to you, I speak your language. If I am buying, dann müssen Sie Deutsch sprechen”?
Research by Professor James Foreman-Peck for UK Trade & Investment demonstrated that deficient language skills cost the UK economy 3.5% of GDP per year, which is around £48 billion each year—a sizeable sum.
If and when we leave the EU, it will be essential for our citizens to be able to engage in conversation, in negotiations and in talking personally or professionally with our neighbours in their own languages. Take-up is not helped by the view that it is more difficult to get high grades in languages than in other subjects. Surely this should be a matter for exam boards and examiners to address, by bringing grades into line with other subjects. It seems an unnecessary hurdle to put in the way of language learning. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to address the issue of language GCSEs and A-levels having lower grades than other subjects? This seems a crucial question if we are to raise the attraction of language learning. It is a matter of urgency that we encourage more young people to learn and to enjoy the way others communicate and, in doing so, to understand better our international neighbours. I applaud the work of the British Council and British Academy in their research and I hope that the Government listen to and support their recommendations on modern language teaching.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, deserves our gratitude for initiating this debate on a subject of real importance— much greater importance than can be reflected adequately in a three-minute contribution. Many noble Lords have highlighted the figures that demonstrate that foreign language teaching in our schools and universities is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said—in crisis.
The introduction of the EBacc was designed, in part, to promote greater take-up of French and German, but it does not seem to have made an impact. There are a number of contributing factors, most of which have been referred to today by noble Lords. In part, it is caused by complacency, with young people feeling they have no need to learn a foreign language because English appears to be ubiquitous. They need to be made aware that only a quarter of the world’s population speaks English, which means around 5.5 billion people do not. It is also in part due to a lack of suitably qualified teachers of languages for schools and that there are fewer teacher education opportunities, especially in the lesser-taught languages. Another factor is cuts to school funding, resulting in a reduction in school libraries and their resources.
The decline in young people studying languages is less likely to be reversed while the Government persist with their rhetoric, as they have since the referendum, deliberately fostering what the Home Affairs Select Committee described in its report published this week as “a hostile environment” to immigrants. In addition to fostering negative impressions of people who are “not like us”, and hence their languages, such hostility has caused foreign nationals to leave the UK while deterring others from coming here. That policy is particularly demonstrated by the Government’s senseless determination to include overseas students in the immigration figures, when in fact they make a decisive net contribution to this country. There is already a shortage of modern foreign language teachers, yet the Government’s unwelcoming tone ignores the fact that, as has already been stated, currently around one-third of them are non-UK EU nationals. We need more of them to plug the gap, particularly from France, Spain and Germany, but the generally inhospitable atmosphere—perceived or real—since the referendum makes that much more difficult.
The effect is also seriously concerning for the ability of young people to prepare themselves for the fast-changing demands of the economy in the years ahead. At a time when global connections matter more than ever, it is worrying that the UK is facing a languages deficit, because that restricts access by young people to overseas work experience, a vital part of preparation for them to develop a career in international business. Needless to say, the very real threat to the ability of UK students to access the Erasmus+ programme after we leave the EU is an issue that the Government simply must resolve through negotiation. Failure to do so could only lead to a further reduction in the number of undergraduate language courses. This is one of the recommendations in the British Council’s excellent recent report. I would highlight also the call for minimum time requirements for language teaching—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that that should start at key stage 1—and for further education and higher education providers to integrate language modules into more of their courses.
I hope the Minister will have had the opportunity in the two months since it was published to study the British Council report in sufficient detail to respond today to its recommendations, because it is a clarion call for action that is absolutely necessary.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her passionate advocacy of the importance of teaching modern foreign languages. When the national curriculum was first introduced, it was compulsory to teach at least one language to all pupils in key stages 3 and 4. However, it may be that the true value of languages was not widely embraced, as the Government of the day removed this requirement in 2004, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, mentioned. We know that there is much more to be gained from studying a foreign language. It can build cultural and global understanding, and improve the ability to think laterally and creatively. It can also bring benefits from a career perspective: languages are important for those working as translators and in the diplomatic service, but also for those working in petrochemicals, engineers, banking and any profession that can lead to working overseas or with international partners.
I would like to chip in at this point to answer a question raised by my noble friend Lady Hooper. She asked whether civil servant applicants are routinely asked about any foreign language skills. As far as I am aware, the Civil Service does not ask applicants directly about language skills unless it is relevant to the role. That is something for us to mull over.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, we know it is a myth to believe that, as English is spoken fluently by many around the world, there is no need for us to converse in the languages of our international business partners. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne put it rather more starkly and succinctly. I was interested also to hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said. He made an important point about the commonality of language to cross religious and country values.
We have never been an insular nation, and, in leaving the European Union, it is important that we adopt an even more global outlook. In support of this concept, the British Council’s Languages for the Future report, published in November 2017, said that we must,
“initiate a bold new policy to improve foreign language learning for a transformed ‘global Britain’”.
I agree, but we are still far from achieving the levels of uptake and proficiency in languages that we need to, and those points have been made today. Only 47.3% of pupils entered a languages GCSE in 2017, and in too many schools only the most academic pupils are encouraged to study languages to GCSE level. Yet taught well, all children can become fluent. Maintained schools must offer languages at key stage 4, although it is not mandatory for pupils to take up that offer. We need taking a GCSE to be an option that all pupils might want to take, in the knowledge that it will be enjoyable, is of value and that quality teaching will enable them to make good progress.
What action are we taking to improve the take-up of languages? I start by saying that I absolutely read the view of noble Lords including the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Janke, and my noble friend Lord Sherborne about the interesting idea of a national language recovery scheme. I will be taking that back to the Department for Education as an idea to look at.
In September 2014, we made it mandatory for maintained primary schools to teach a language to pupils at key stage 2, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. Maintained secondary schools must also teach a language to pupils at key stage 3 and offer it at key stage 4. An important point about continuity was made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked what was being done to encourage students beginning language study as early as key stage 1. Schools are free to teach languages to children at key stage 1 if they choose to, and a wide range of resources are publicly available to support teachers who wish to teach languages to younger children. However, this is not a mandatory requirement, and we have no plans to make it so.
We have introduced the English baccalaureate performance measure, which shows how many pupils entered a GCSE in English, maths, sciences, a language and history or geography. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked why the EBacc has not stemmed the downward trend in those studying languages in school and whether the English baccalaureate affects teaching of other creative subjects. Pupils who took GCSEs in 2017 will have made their subject choices in 2014, before the publication of the EBacc consultation. We therefore were not expecting language entries to rise significantly this year. In July 2017, we published the outcome of the EBacc consultation, which sets a clear direction of travel for the EBacc, and we expect schools to respond to it. Entries to language GCSEs are now higher than they were in 2010, but we have always said that the EBacc should be studied as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.
In July, we announced our ambition for 75% of year 10 pupils to be studying the EBacc by 2022. This is an indication of the importance that the Government attach to languages, as these aspirations cannot be met without pupils taking a GCSE in a foreign language. But there is much more to do, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, eloquently set out most of the challenges in her speech. Although the proportion of pupils taking the EBacc has risen from 22% in 2010, only 38% of pupils in state-funded schools were entered for GCSEs in all five EBacc subject areas in 2017.
Take-up of languages GCSEs has been the biggest obstacle to achieving high EBacc entry rates. In 2017, of those pupils who entered GCSEs in only four of the five EBacc subject areas, 80% had not been entered for a languages GCSE. These figures serve to highlight the extent of the challenge facing us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, reported that schools are using Progress 8 to avoid MFL and that the EBacc and Progress 8 are in conflict, but we believe that these measures are in fact complementary. It is true that a people does not have to do MFL to get a good Progress 8 score, but the EBacc’s subjects are given emphasis. What is more important than relying on performance measures is to ensure that pupils want to take languages because they see the value and are well taught—a point I made earlier.
We have considered practical steps to help schools. First, Mandarin is cited by Languages for the Future, along with French, German, Spanish and Arabic, as one of the five most important languages for this country’s future. The Mandarin excellence programme, which began in September 2016, will see at least 5,000 young people on track towards fluency in Mandarin Chinese by 2020. Schools on the programme provide four hours’ direct teaching time to pupils, supplemented by another four hours’ study. This has led to pupils making great progress in that language.
Secondly, the recently published social mobility action plan outlined plans to improve access to high-quality modern foreign languages subject teaching. Expert hubs will see schools with a good track record in teaching languages sharing best practice in pedagogy.
Thirdly, there is a need to step up communications by highlighting the importance and value of languages to parents, pupils and teachers alike. Our future communications will highlight the role that languages can and must play in improving pupils’ achievement across subjects. These actions to increase the number of pupils entering languages GCSEs will build a larger pool of potential A-level and degree students.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked a question about the Government’s plans to address the causes of the decline in modern languages degree courses in universities—and he asked what we think the cause is. We think that the key factor impacting MFLs in higher education is the decline in the take-up of languages at GCSE level. I have already referred to the positive steps we are taking to address that, but there is some evidence that a substantial number of students continue to develop language and intercultural skills during higher education, evidenced by an upswing in students choosing to study language modules alongside their non-language degree subject. The annual UCML/Association of University Language Centre’s survey of institution-wide language providers in UK higher education institutions suggests that the numbers have more than doubled in a decade.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for answering some of the questions I provided in advance, but there seems to be an element, if not of complacency, at least of just leaving it at young people being encouraged to take up more languages. It may happen or it may not happen, and at the moment it is not happening. I have heard nothing which suggests that what the Government are doing or planning to do will suddenly create the step change that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said is necessary in her introduction. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, in countries such as Germany it is compulsory. We really have to grasp the fact that language teaching in this country, certainly in the early years, has to become compulsory or there is no reason to believe that the figures will improve.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thought that the noble Lord might want to make that point, but that is the next step, is it not? We are not at the stage of wanting to move towards the compulsory angle. I have set out clearly the actions that we are taking, but I did say at the outset that this debate, along with other debates which might be held, will feed into the department. Perhaps new ideas will emerge, particularly those raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in their speeches.
I would like to move on to teacher supply and retention. We cannot grow this pool without enough high-quality teachers in our schools. That is why we are working to grow a strong pipeline of teachers from within England. But let me be clear: there are more teachers than ever before in our schools—15,500 more than in 2010. The number of teachers returning to the profession has risen by 8% since 2011, and we are encouraged that the number of people starting initial teacher training in 2017 was up on the year before. However, in case I am accused of being complacent, we know absolutely that the recruitment landscape is tough. We are alive to the challenges that the improving economy and the pressures of rising pupil numbers pose. Recruitment in priority subjects like languages has historically been challenging, and that is why we have put a package of measures in place to support the recruitment of trainees and the retention of existing teachers. We continue to offer generous financial incentives, including scholarships and tax-free bursaries, which are typically worth up to £26,000, for trainees in priority subjects, including modern foreign languages. We have also developed a number of measures to encourage more specialists into initial teacher training, including targeted marketing campaigns and providing support to potential applicants across priority subjects.
I should like to move on to the recruitment of teachers from overseas. As we grow the domestic pipeline of teachers, we are exploring international recruitment initiatives in the short term. For example, we have worked with the Spanish Government to expand their visitor teacher programme to England. While most teachers are recruited from this country, schools have been able to recruit staff from overseas to fill posts that cannot be filled from the resident workforce. As we recruit more teachers nationally—this is a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—and work to increase retention, we expect a reduction in the need for these initiatives.
We fully appreciate the valuable contribution that EU nationals make to teaching languages in our schools and universities. In December, the UK and EU negotiating teams issued a joint report on the first phase of the Brexit negotiations. This has helped to provide certainty for those EU nationals, including MFL teachers, who will be living in the UK when we exit the EU. It sets out a fair deal on citizens’ rights that allows UK and EU citizens to get on with their lives broadly as they do now, continuing to enjoy rights such as access to healthcare, benefits and education.
I realise that time is against me and know that a number of other points were raised, notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Evans. I shall write to all noble Lords and put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House answering those queries.
To conclude, I have heard certain messages from noble Lords today, and it is clear that we are at a crossroads in the future of languages teaching in our education system. Doing nothing is not an option and the Government are taking positive steps through the initiatives I have outlined. There may be more to do, but I am encouraged by the passion and support your Lordships have shown today for improving the profile of languages within our education system.
Defence Review
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sterling of Plaistow
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to conduct a full defence review, in the light of the capability of the Armed Forces to meet global defence needs.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully remind your Lordships that the time in which to speak is limited to two minutes. I am sorry about that but if noble Lords could honour it, I would be very grateful.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
May I be allowed to ask whether that includes breathing time?
My Lords, I am most grateful to have the opportunity to address this crucial subject in your Lordships’ House. In Her Majesty’s Loyal Address on 27 May 2015, the Queen used the word “re-engage”. I tried to find out who put that word in—No. 10, the Foreign Office or the palace? I never nailed it down.
That word says it all. We have been disengaging for years from many countries—and, crucially, from those of the Commonwealth. They are fast coming to the conclusion that we are becoming part of yesterday. We all know that to recover respect and standing is a hard hill to climb.
Early last year I, and others, called for a fully up-to-date SDSR, as it had become more than clear that not only had the world become a vastly more dangerous place but our withdrawal from the European Union—not Europe—added a major global dimension to our needs and responsibilities. Circumstances in 2018 are light years away from those in 2014-15.
As many of us who were involved at the time knew, the 2010 SDSR was, frankly, an unmitigated disaster from which the Ministry of Defence has still not fully recovered. The 2015 review was carried out in a much more professional way, the result of which substantially improved the hardware and kit for our armed services, but the financial resources needed were heavily under- estimated. Ministers are still instructed to keep to the government line—namely, the now famous “2% NATO”, and so on and so on—yet they must be more than aware of the lack of resources leading to the dangerous hollowing out that is taking place daily. This is known not just by our allies—in particular, the United States—but by our potential enemies.
What is most worrying is that our people and their families and, of course, all those involved in our defence industries are only too aware of our known weaknesses, and so increasingly are the public at large via the media in their many forms. Is it therefore a surprise that the quality of those we are trying to recruit is faltering? And worse, some of our best are leaving. I am sure that other noble and noble and gallant Lords will spell out those needs during this short debate.
The men and women who serve and wish to serve in our armed services are by far the key construct, and it is vital that they and their families are fully confident that the necessary resources will unquestionably be available so that not only can they fight to the best of their abilities but they are provided with the finest protection. Of course we accept that we are not trying to emulate our world role as it was in the Churchill days of the Second World War, but in the years to come we must have a fighting force of the necessary strength which will in itself be a deterrent—the finest equipped and the finest trained, led by forward-thinking, innovative leadership that can respond immediately to possible expected threats and, most of all, the unexpected. Our armed services have always played a key role in responding to catastrophic events that take place from time to time throughout the world.
As recently endorsed by our Secretary of State for Defence, the right honourable Gavin Williamson, our Armed Forces should be the “best in the world”. Much needs to be changed if this goal is to be achieved, but many act as though we have all the time in the world—we need it like yesterday.
On Thursday of last week, 11 January, I went to the Commons to observe and listen to the Back-Bench defence debate led by Vernon Coaker, MP, the distinguished former shadow Secretary of State, who made an excellent opening speech and closed with passion. If you have not read it, it is a must. What is more, it is better to watch it live, as Hansard does not do justice to the experience of seeing the body language, the passion, the eloquence and the deep knowledge of the subject among our Members of Parliament. James Gray MP, chairman of the APPG for the Armed Forces, pointed out that in the past, there were five government-called debates on defence every year, and the House was packed.
What was also splendid was the non-partisan participation from all sides of the House, covering the whole of the United Kingdom: Labour, Conservative, SNP, and other MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland et cetera. It was also clear that unless the right levels of resources were forthcoming, there was and would be grave disquiet behind the Government Benches. I am sorry to have to have to inform my noble friend the Minister that I would totally share that sentiment.
The debate lasted nearly five hours, and I only wish the public and the media were aware that they have such calibre of MPs trying to do their duty on behalf of the nation for the defence of the realm. They should be truly grateful for their efforts. I am sure my noble friend the Minister would strongly agree that this House, with all its knowledge, experience and wisdom, has the same unquestionable sense of duty.
It is has been known for at least three years that much greater resource was needed to support both present and future defence needs, taking account of course of the increasing roles of cyber, intelligence, technology et cetera. It was hoped much would result from the security review which was started by our National Security Adviser, Sir Mark Sedwill, last June. It consisted of 12 strands, but with only one strand covering the Ministry of Defence.
However, that review has to be fiscally neutral. It does not make sense. Surely, the outcome should be fully costed in order to decide the total resources needed to decide the way forward. I was a founder member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy some 12 years ago, and we all agreed then that the National Security Council should be a key organisation for this country, but that it did not have the right structure to achieve this objective. I am afraid the jury is still out. It should be a strategic body and much more widely represented, with the direct involvement of the Chiefs of Staff with their own strategic input.
Dr Julian Lewis, the chairman of the Defence Select Committee, stated in the Commons debate that in times past, in particular during World War II and later, their strategic views were given direct to both Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill and then Clement Atlee. Sir Mark, as National Security Adviser, must be allowed to be more independent—to have more independence and therefore influence—more like his counterparts in the United States.
We are dangerously running out of time. I personally find most frustrating the length of time it takes for decisions to be made and implemented. If we were on a war footing, much of this bureaucratic baggage would immediately fall away. Many of us in both our Houses wish to see a properly funded foreign service delivering a clear long-term foreign policy, itemising both risks and opportunities. A proper defence review should clearly identify value for money, not just cost, and demonstrate clearly the financial resources needed for both our short-term and long-term needs in cash-flow terms.
As we speak, some £2 billion is most urgently needed just to complete the present programme. As Dr Lewis and many others in both Houses have stressed, and continue to stress, we should unquestionably allocate at least 3% of our GDP—which is still a low percentage in comparison with the past. Many billions would flow back into our own economy through sovereign purchases, and it will unquestionably be of economic benefit. This level of funding would send a powerful signal to our NATO allies and certainly help our negotiations with the European Union.
The First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister, so surely the Treasury does not have the final word. Following her powerful speech at Lancaster House, I would like to think that the very strong views expressed in both Houses will convince the Prime Minister that she has the quality of support which would enable her words to become a reality.
On a different subject, President Trump—I reiterate President Trump, not Trump—released the US national security strategy just before the Christmas break. As usual, television, radio and other media immediately panned it in a most superficial way. Later that afternoon, I discussed the release and the document itself with a very senior officer in the Department of Defense and we both agreed that it was not only a most interesting document but the declaration of a confident country— I stress the word “confident”. It is a country that is further strengthening its already extraordinary economy and which, not surprisingly, puts “America first” but, unlike President Obama who was becoming increasingly isolationist, intends to return to its former world role of defending and protecting western values throughout the world. It is totally understandable that the President considers it only fair that the rest of us share the bill.
Our relationship with the United States through history—our key military ally, our expectation to be major trading partners and our shared culture—is unique. Therefore, I find it extraordinary that the Government, despite the degree of anti-feeling, were not more robust months ago to warmly invite the President of the United States of America to visit the United Kingdom. Historically, this country was famous for its realpolitik; both Germany and France, who are not known lovers of the United States, are more than prepared to use it to the full. Personal views should play no part whatever.
Today, sadly, this country could not release a national security strategy with the same confidence of that of the United States but, with powerful leadership and the support of parliamentarians, that day can come. We will have done our duty.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I shall focus on the importance of continuing to develop soft power and the UK’s contribution to UN peacekeeping work. Our Armed Forces play an invaluable role in securing our national influence around the world and delivering on our security and economic goals. The expertise of the UK Armed Forces is, as my noble friend has said, both legendary and highly valued. I witnessed this when I was the Prime Minister’s special representative for the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative and the Foreign Office Minister responsible for UN peacekeeping. I visited the British support team in Kenya, and was impressed by their teaching courses for police and security personnel from across the region. Last year alone, 9,000 military, police and civilians were trained in specialist areas, ranging from protection of civilians, through numerous types of tactical training to high-end weapons technical intelligence and counter-IED courses. It is essential that we enable that work to continue in future.
The UK’s contribution to UN peacekeeping was enhanced in 2015 when David Cameron announced that, in addition to our financial support, we would send personnel as a troop contributing country to South Sudan. There, I met our Engineer Regiment-led task force, stationed in the north of South Sudan, which provides engineering support, such as the construction of a jetty on the River Nile, a vital temporary field hospital in Bentiu and helicopter landing sites. I was therefore delighted when my noble friend the Minister announced last November that the UK is extending its deployment in South Sudan until April 2020. It is, indeed, a demonstration of our commitment to international peace and security. We need to be sure that any review of spending and of our forces demonstrates a commitment to do much more in future.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, we are deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for giving us the opportunity for this debate today, as well as for giving the House the opportunity to respond by showing the pent-up demand for a proper defence debate that lasts all day. I hope that the powers that be have taken note of that response. I am left with about one and half minutes to make three points.
The first point is that, like everybody else, and any responsible citizen of this country and Members on both sides of the House, I hope to heaven that the Government are not planning any more defence cuts after the terrible way in which our defence capability has been run down over the past seven or eight years. It would be utterly unjustifiable; the world has not in any sense become a less dangerous place, and there is no justification whatever for that.
My second point is that, on that positive assumption that the Government do not have those plans—it really would be horrific if they did—I hope that they will put an end to the uncertainty by making a clear statement that there will not be any further defence cuts. The moment that comes up in any conversation that anybody has with serving military personnel, officers or other ranks, there is a real worry on that subject. I am sure that many colleagues have had such conversations in the past few weeks and months. This is really affecting morale, and it must be affecting recruitment. This is a quite unnecessary cost to impose on our military, on top of everything else. I hope, therefore, that clarity can be established very quickly.
My third point is this: I gather one reason why the MoD has run into financial problems recently has been the devaluation of sterling, and the higher sterling price as a result of procurement from the United States and, to some extent, the European Union, of the A400M programme. I suppose that the F35 is the major issue here. I hope we can have a statement on this from the Minister to put our minds at rest, because one thing that is absolutely clear is that under no circumstances should the military be made to pay the price for that devaluation. In no sense whatever is it the military’s fault. This is a direct result of government policy to hold the referendum and, afterwards, to decide—quite gratuitously, in my view—to understand it as excluding us from the single market and the customs union. This is having a devastating effect on the economy, of course, but it is nothing to do with the military, and the military should not be made responsible for it or have to suffer for it. That would be utterly unjust and irrational.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I have a few brief points. I have great respect for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but I say this in the nicest way: if he chooses to remain in office, he has to bear some responsibility for the financial situation that is ongoing at the Ministry of Defence. It is clear from the exchanges earlier in the week that the review has been nobbled and is being dovetailed, as was said earlier, into the existing budget. I strongly support greater NATO-European co-operation, and welcome the Anglo-French announcements today. Sadly, such greater co-operation is not helped by the tragedy of Brexit. We live in an increasingly dangerous world: China and Russia are modernising their forces and increasing defence expenditure, and the underwater threat is a particular concern. In my view, the current ratio of 3:1 defence expenditure to overseas aid is unsustainable. I favour a reduction in overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5%, which would provide at least £2 billion annually for the defence budget.
I want to finish with a brief question to the Minister. Will he inform us of the latest position on the propulsion systems for the Type 45 destroyers?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Treasury-mandated starting point for the 2010 defence review was a reduction in the MoD’s budget of between 10% and 20% to be achieved over the first three years. The measures necessary to achieve such savings so quickly proved unpalatable, even to a Government focused wholly on the elimination of the deficit over the span of one Parliament. But even the savings that were eventually made, of some 7.5%, inevitably left a strategically incoherent defence programme. The best that could be done was to reach a position in 2015 from which coherence could be rebuilt, provided that substantial real-terms increases were made in the defence budget in each of the succeeding years.
In the 2015 review, the MoD produced a plan to restore coherence, although more slowly than envisaged in 2010, but the plan was inadequately funded. It relied on wholly unrealistic assumptions about the savings that could be made through efficiency. When, unsurprisingly, these failed to materialise, the plan was in trouble, and the subsequent fall in the exchange rate only exacerbated the problem.
The Government now face a choice: they can provide more money and fund the plan properly or they must come up with a new plan. I, of course, urge them to adopt the former course, not least because this is the minimum action that is required. Let it be remembered that the 2015 plan was about achieving coherence, not about restoring our defence capabilities to where they should be in this challenging and dangerous world. That would require an annual expenditure of more like 3% of GDP. Alas, I do not expect the Government to go so far. However, I trust that the Minister will, in due course, be able to confirm that they will at least do this bare minimum. I, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, would view anything less with the gravest concern.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I confide in you. Priests—even bishops, perhaps particularly so—are inclined to repeat themselves. I imagine noble Lords might have noticed. I have heard it said that we have only one sermon in us and just dress the message up differently each Sunday. I will be repeating my message today, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for the opportunity to do so. I am just as grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for listening to my repetition with the grace, care and attention that we all appreciate.
My message is that I applaud the Government’s ambition for defence, which is about British power for good in the world—but as things stand, I doubt that we have the capability, or the defence budget to deliver the capability, to meet that ambition. Things could be about to get worse, judging by what we read in the media. So, if we are to meet the Government’s ambition, we must also review our ability to do so.
My second point is that the present state of uncertainty is not helpful, and that is an understatement. The media is not the forum in which to conduct discussions on defence expenditure. We should have discussions in private, followed speedily by clarity in public. That would be fair to those who are affected, so they know where they stand. The current lack of clarity creates uncertainty, particularly among the servicemen and women we value so much.
My final point is also on morale. The noble Earl may have an inkling of the direction in which I am heading. I hope that he will be able to respond to my question on whether he can commit to a debate on the Floor of the House on the Armed Forces covenant—an opportunity to pat the Government on the back for all that has been done and to look forward to all that might be done. When it comes to defence, our greatest riches are the commitment, sacrifice and professionalism of our Armed Forces. We need to provide them with resources and end this ghastly uncertainty.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. Oh, have I jumped ahead? I am so sorry.
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, I wish to raise a very specific point for the Minister, concerning the Royal Navy and maintaining its reach.
Her Majesty’s Ship “Queen Elizabeth”—a carrier—is most welcome, and shortly she will enter into full service, but she needs substantial support. For example, she needs submarines underneath her, destroyers to protect her, frigates and, obviously, supply ships and landing craft et cetera. My main concern about the veritable naval armada that is contained, or implied, by these two great, new carriers is the implication for the existing service provided by the Royal Navy, in terms of protection in the Gulf, South Atlantic and Pacific. How will we maintain the proper servicing for an aircraft carrier—indeed, we will have two, with one always at sea—and how can we maintain our worldwide reach, as I believe we should?
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for jumping the gun. I was so keen to put my stopwatch on and make sure that I did not do more than my two minutes that I will misuse a few of my seconds now in apologising. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for making sure that your Lordships’ House keeps coming back to the question of defence and defence expenditure. As he said, in the other place last week there was an excellent debate on defence where all the contributors, from whichever part of the other place, made clear their commitments to the Armed Forces and defence expenditure.
For slight reasons of getting the list wrong—it is not just me today—I do not speak as the Liberal Democrats Front-Bench speaker at the end of the list. However, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to reconfirm that we are still committed to 0.7% of GDP going to development aid. My noble friend Lord Lee made very good points about defence expenditure, but he maybe is not putting forward the party line on development aid.
We are deeply concerned about expenditure. I seem to recall that in the aftermath of the referendum the Minister repeatedly told us that defence expenditure was essentially hedged and would rise in real terms, yet that is not the advice that we seem to be given now. What commitment can he give us that defence expenditure will be ring-fenced in real terms? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth rightly mentioned morale in our Armed Forces. What is the Minister doing about the offer in terms of pay and pensions, and to what extent does he think morale is in the right place? Can more be done? In particular, can he reassure us that adequate training will be given, including extreme-weather training for the Royal Marines, and that the Royal Marines’ position in our Armed Forces remains absolutely secure?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, deterrence is not just having Trident invulnerable at sea; it needs national resolve, with conventional defence and hitting power, too. A tripwire alone will not sustain deterrence credibility.
If diplomacy fails to avert conflict, or there is a bolt from the blue, what next? First, indicate determination not to give in and fight back with conventional force. If not, face the starkest of choices: immediate surrender or press that nuclear button.
Since the 1990s, we have had complete air superiority over opposing forces. That was not so in the Falklands. The opponent could not be denied airspace. Our losses mounted: six fighting ships and landing craft sunk; others knocked out of action; more than 30 air assets gone; nearly 1,000 dead or wounded, all in a mere three weeks. Only victory brought salvation, a halt to these setbacks and escape from disaster. After the conflict, we had enough in strength to make up for what had been lost.
Not so today. Losses at those rates now could soon leave us conventionally defenceless. The forces are too weak in manpower, equipment and weapons to absorb such losses and still fight on. So stop gutting and hollowing out the services. Let us build up numbers. If not, the national deterrent will be derided as mere political tokenism—the country an emperor with threadbare clothes. The deterrent lacks full credibility without more conventional clout to underpin it. Reviewers, please take note.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
The way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, has put his Question together is fairly open-ended, which gives a lot of us a chance, so I have lost two pages of what I was going to say by now.
I picked up the Times newspaper last week and was rather delighted to read that our national shipbuilding strategy has gone to work. It has recognised the challenges faced by the MoD and the UK industry and set out an ambitious plan to improve the way in which the MoD goes about procuring warships and how industry responds to the MoD. Procuring Type 31e through a competitive process within UK shipyards and with a capped cost of £250 million per ship will not only ensure that the Royal Navy can afford to buy enough of the ships it needs to meet its global commitments but will deliver value for money for taxpayers and strengthen UK industry, including through exports. We can do that because, right now, no other shipbuilding can match the price tag for our frigates.
I was also very tickled to read in the article that it looked like the end of BAE’s monopoly after all that time. Here we have competition back again. So I am a little more optimistic about what is going on. I am rather keen on us all having these fights every now and again. If we keep doing it, we will eventually feel that we are where we need to be. The man that we had involved with this is Sir John Parker, the industrialist and veteran of shipbuilding. Such men and women will take us to our next fight.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The 2015 defence review set out our strategic priorities and a vision for how defence should contribute to our country’s global ambitions. That review was under-resourced to the tune of half a billion pounds and that, added to the current adverse pound/dollar exchange rate, defence equipment inflation versus headline inflation and the failure of some efficiencies measures, results in today’s serious underfunding of the defence budget. Thus cuts are under way now. Incidentally, I take issue with the Minister in saying in our November debate that I was “completely wrong” regarding cuts having to be found to compensate for efficiencies not properly delivered. I am not wrong on that.
In addition to today’s cuts, further drastic savings measures are being considered. The Minister will say that this is all speculation and that no decisions have been made, but I suggest that he cannot deny that some very serious capability measures are being costed. If they are taken, that will have a dramatic effect on our ability to meet our SDSR 2015 mission requirements, and the Armed Forces will certainly not be able to deliver properly on contributing to the Government’s aspirations to be a global player, aspirations frequently articulated by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and, indeed, the noble Earl himself.
We cannot continue gaffer-taping up our disintegrating defence. We must either fund properly the capabilities set out in SDSR 2015, or we should have a proper defence review to recalibrate our country’s requirement for defence. If that suggests that our defence capability should be largely as now, let us see it resourced properly. If there is not the will to do that, cut cloth and recognise that the Government’s global ambitions are a wish too far.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl’s Statement on Monday left me with more questions than answers. In response to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe he said that the SDSR 2015 did not sufficiently predict the intensification of the threats that Britain now faces. What specific steps will be taken to ensure this error is not repeated? What is covered by a security capability review that was not covered by SDSR 2015? He told us that the Government had to be realistic in how they configure the defence budget over the next few years. Does not that mean even more cuts? He said that the capability review was fiscally neutral, adding that that may mean enhancing resources for certain capabilities and reducing them for others. He said that spending more on defence was not currently the reality that the Government were working on in this review. So can we deduce from the Minister’s comments that his Secretary of State has given way in his battle for more money from the Treasury?
The noble Earl said that plans to support the national security strategy would be as effective and efficient as possible—and this from a Government that spent £16 million on refitting RFA “Diligence”, our only at-sea repair ship, in order to scrap it, then spent £65 million on refitting HMS “Ocean”, our only vessel capable of allowing marines to deploy using landing craft and helicopters, only to scrap that, too, then announced that a further £20 million would be spent on adapting one of the carriers to carry out the role that “Ocean” carried out. Certainly “efficient” and “effective” would not be the words that I would use—but then that comes from a Government who attempted to sell HMS “Ark Royal” on eBay.
Today our Prime Minister is meeting the French President, hoping to agree further defence co-operation. Will the Prime Minister explain to Monsieur Macron why, since 2010, this Government have overseen a 50% reduction in our military capability, a point made by my noble friend Lord West of Spithead? It would be a welcome start if Mrs May called a halt to Britain’s descent into becoming a second-rate military power, and that rather than a piecemeal stab at a national security capability review, the Government should have a top to bottom review of our defence and security needs based on our foreign policy objectives, then provide the resources we need.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sterling of Plaistow on introducing this timely, yet too short debate. As General Sir Nick Carter acknowledged recently on the “Today” programme, the security threats faced by this country have never been greater during his 40-year career. We are one of only five countries, including Greece and Estonia, which observe the NATO guideline to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. I am not sure that we do still meet the 2% guideline, because we used not to include the intelligence and security budget within defence spending. Over the last several years, we have progressively moved the intelligence budget into defence, making it hard to compare present spending with that of 10 years ago as a proportion of GDP. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could inform the Committee what is the current level of defence spending as compared with that of 10 years ago, on the same basis as we used to measure it? I suspect that it is more like 1.7% than 2%. Of course, I understand that we now conform to the NATO rules for measuring spending—so perhaps the Minister alternatively could tell us what defence spending would have been 10 years ago, if we had already at that time started including the intelligence budget within defence.
My noble friend referred to Mr Vernon Coaker, who expressed concern that, if the current national security capability review is to be fiscally neutral, and if spending on cyber and intelligence capabilities is to be increased, then it follows that the Government must be considering cutting pure defence expenditure or the capabilities of the Armed Forces. That would be extremely dangerous in the current climate. Could I ask my noble friend the Minister if the Government are still firmly committed to increasing pure defence spending in absolute terms, and as a percentage of GDP?
There are several reasons why the United Kingdom still punches above its weight around the world. Our country’s much-envied soft power does not depend only on the excellent quality of our foreign service personnel, highly skilled and effective though they are. Our soft power is considerably augmented by our hard power, or at least the perception that we still possess the highest-quality Armed Forces in the world—by no means the largest, but the most effective and well trained, man for man, in the world. Perhaps nowadays I should say “person for person”, which leads me finally to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he shares my concern that the attempt to recruit more people from different backgrounds, religions and orientations, and also to pander more to the emotional well-being of personnel at the expense of the traditional emphasis on physical fitness, threatens to backfire and may be counterproductive? Does he not agree that this new, politically correct approach may put off those potential recruits from traditional backgrounds, and that the Armed Forces may lose more than they gain? Does he not think it very important to continue to exhort our soldiers, sailors and airmen—I cannot bring myself to say air persons—to be the best? That would optimise the recruitment of suitable personnel from both traditional and the more diverse new backgrounds.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, we must now determine our future contribution and place in the world, while balancing the protection of our national interests and achievement of our foreign policy goals. Developing conventional capability partnerships for comparative advantage, disregarding vanity projects and matching critical requirements to budgetary constraints are fundamental. I would hope to hear today of much-needed tightened departmental guidelines on contract awards, spending procedures and budgetary control, as well as enhanced in-house scrutiny and delivery capabilities.
Political masters have an unenviable challenge to fund and deliver the effective tools and processes for each of the four strategic needs: ground, sea, air, and cyber. The fourth, the new threat of cyber, represents the biggest challenge. Is the Minister satisfied the United Kingdom has the resources and capabilities to counter current and future cyber threats? In order to ensure maximum necessary capability in our cybersecurity arsenal, we must know the extent of future co-operation on software vulnerability with ENISA, the EU cyber- security agency. I understand that a proposal to set up a certification framework, with ENISA as the hub, is in the offing, so from that point we can calculate our needs and costs. Are the Government addressing this with ENISA, or is this subject to the ongoing Brexit negotiations?
Her Majesty’s Government might wish to consider hosting a state-level global conference to map out political, security and cyber dialogues and responsibilities and to co-ordinate necessary scrutiny and enforcement mechanisms.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, is: should we have a full SDSR? It seems to me that the response to that depends on the effectiveness of the present process, which we were told about on 15 January. The affirmation then was that the threat was as in 2015 or worse, and another was that there was no more money. Another affirmation was that there would be no more muddling or hollowing out—call it what you like—with training cuts, a reduction in spares, ships tied up and repairs deferred. Frankly, those three statements are incapable of delivery. There is at least a £2 billion per year gap and it is necessary to do something about that.
So there is muddling—we know that there is. That is why morale is falling—the morale figures from the last review were dreadful—and it is why we are failing to recruit and maintain the numbers. It is inevitable that there will be cuts. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that when, sadly, there are cuts, there will be detailed explanations of the security and defence threats that we are leaving exposed in our foreign policy? We will know of such threats only at the end of a full SDSR taking place. I believe that the consensus view that we will need a lengthy debate at the end of that process is sound, and I will certainly be working through my channels to see whether we can have such a debate.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sterling on securing this important debate. As the debate has proved, his Question undoubtedly reflects the considerable interest in the subject across the House, and rightly so.
Before I address my noble friend’s Question directly, I shall set the context. As noble Lords are aware, the National Security Adviser has been leading work on a national security capability review since July. It has been an important opportunity for the Government to conduct a thorough analysis of intensifying threats to national security and to consider their impact on the implementation of the 2015 national security strategy and strategic defence and security review.
Defence has played a major role in the capability review, contributing a huge amount of work. There can be no doubt that we will continue to build on elements of that good work after the review has drawn to a close, further exploring the opportunities for modernisation that have been identified.
However, it is important that I do not pre-empt the completion of the capability review. Ministers will discuss its conclusions in due course and will consider what needs to happen next. Precisely because of that, and because we believe that the last SDSR is a sound basis for the work that we are doing, I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that I cannot stand here today and commit the Government to conducting a full defence review.
The substance of my noble friend’s Question is the capability of the Armed Forces to meet global defence needs, as he well articulated. Those defence needs, and indeed our wider foreign policy, begin with the three national security objectives set out in the 2015 national security strategy: protect our people, project our global influence and promote our prosperity. The Armed Forces, and the wider defence enterprise, make an expert and admirable contribution to the fulfilment of those objectives. That will not change.
The protection of our people is clearly at the very heart of what defence exists to do. At home, the Armed Forces contribute to the resilience of the UK. They support the police under Operation Temperer and hold 1,200 troops at very high readiness under government winter preparedness plans. Their outstanding support to UK overseas territories in the Caribbean last year, following Hurricane Irma, offers a remarkable example of their capabilities in this latter regard. In UK airspace and territorial waters, the Armed Forces keep a constant guard against threats. The recent images of HMS “Westminster” shadowing Russian warships through the Strait of Dover will be familiar.
Beyond our borders, the Armed Forces protect us through their potent deterrent effect. We tend to think first of the UK’s continuous at-sea deterrent, and more recently of our developing carrier strike capability. But every force element in our Armed Forces makes a vital contribution to our ability to deter. Wherever they are deployed, whatever task they are undertaking, the Armed Forces’ world-leading professionalism and skill send a powerful deterrent message to any would-be adversaries, and allow us to project our global influence.
In the latter context, our troops are building the capacity of our allies and partners across the world. In Iraq, the UK Armed Forces have helped to train over 60,000 Iraqi security forces. In Ukraine, the UK has provided defensive training in medical skills, logistics and counter-IED. We are training the Libyan coast guard, the Afghan security forces and the Nigerian armed forces, among very many more examples. Of course, the UK’s contribution to NATO and the UN reinforces international security and the multilateral institutions by which it is upheld. The UK is leading the NATO enhanced forward presence battle group in Estonia, commanding a significant proportion of NATO’s standing naval forces, and as my noble friend Lady Anelay reminded us, contributing to the UN Missions in South Sudan and Somalia.
Finally, defence makes a very large contribution to the prosperity of the UK. In December, the Secretary of State announced a huge £6 billion contract with Qatar for 24 Typhoon aircraft, a huge boost to UK aviation. Equally, contracts emerging from the national shipbuilding strategy—for the Type 26 and, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox rightly mentioned, the Type 31e—support thousands of UK jobs and hundreds of UK suppliers, as does the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme. The defence industrial policy was published in December. It sets out measures to help the UK defence sector to thrive on the global stage, including by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, reinforcing critical skills and training, and increasing investment in defence innovation. I encourage noble Lords to seek it out.
These are our global defence needs. It is clear that the Armed Forces are meeting them. But changes in the global strategic context require changes in the way we conduct the business of defence and security. I have spoken in recent debates about increasing threats faced by the UK and its allies. I do not propose to repeat myself—I think we all agree that we have entered a period of sharply increased complexity and risk. The boundaries between competition, confrontation and conflict are becoming blurred, and the use of military and non-military capabilities is being blended. Our adversaries are investing heavily in traditional capabilities and in non-traditional tools, such as cyber and subversion. They are taking advantage of the proliferation of cheap yet sophisticated technology to exploit our existing vulnerabilities and to try to create new ones.
I will need to write to a number of noble Lords to give full answers to the questions put to me, but let me address at least some. First, there is the perennial question of the defence budget. Of course we must provide defence with sufficient resources to meet the country’s needs. But passionate as we may be about defence, we must do the same for health and social care, for education, for welfare and for civil infrastructure. Balancing those competing demands is the difficult business of government. I can, however, assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard that the defence budget is rising in real terms: £35 billion last year, £36 billion this year, £37 billion next year and £38 billion the year after that.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised the subject of resilience. The need to maintain resilience—the ability to absorb the losses that you may suffer in theatre—is of course one that we fully recognise. I assure him that, as ever, it informs all deliberations on the structure of the UK’s Armed Forces as we go forward.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in particular, the purpose of the NSCR is precisely to ensure that we have the right capabilities for the intensifying threats that we face, but also that we deliver those capabilities in the most appropriate ways.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised the important issue of cyber. He will know that the National Cyber Security Strategy was published in the summer of 2016. It was largely welcomed at the time. It is being delivered through £1.9 billion of investment in the national cybersecurity programme. Investment from that programme is helping the MoD to deliver the new cybersecurity operating capability, and a defence cyber school will open this year. GCHQ and the MoD are working in partnership to deliver the national offensive cyber programme, so that we really do have a world-class offensive cyber capability.
My noble friend Lord Freeman spoke about supporting the aircraft carriers and asked how we would maintain both carriers and maintain worldwide reach. I assure him that operating both aircraft carriers is affordable. Work is being conducted as we speak to plan the most effective and coherent way to operate the capability.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, who asked me about the propulsion systems on the Type 45, I can reassure him, I hope, in part, that Project Napier is addressing the reliability and resilience issues in the Type 45 destroyers. It is a programme that is progressing well and, if I may, I will write to him with further details.
We cannot and we will not allow the UK’s long-held military edge to be eroded, but maintaining our ability to meet those global defence needs and contribute to the national security objectives does not mean maintaining the status quo for our Armed Forces. It means upholding a long tradition of British innovation, harnessing new technologies and techniques. It means reinvigorating and reinforcing NATO, which maintains the bedrock of UK defence. It may also mean reprioritising how we allocate our resources to emphasise the most effective capabilities for the world in which we operate. We must consider the new threats that we face and the new opportunities for modernisation available to us. As the NSCR draws to a close, defence will continue to ask itself those questions and to build on the firm foundations that the review has laid down.
Dental Health: Children
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to ensure that children receive regular dental examinations and any necessary treatment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, it seems appropriate that the Committee should be discussing this subject today, as it fits in well with the British Dental Association’s campaign aimed at creating a greater public awareness of the need to ensure that children’s teeth receive the necessary care. In my view, preventive care is at the forefront of this.
I no longer need to declare a financial interest, as I retired from dental practice after about 35 years as a national health dentist on the fringe of the City, in Old Street, now known as the Silicon Valley of London, which underwent complete redevelopment of the 200 year- old small redbrick houses that were there in our day. The local residents were not keen on dentists, and came only when they felt their problems had become urgent. Patients were often not seen until their pain had become intolerable, and emergency extractions under local anaesthetic were fitted in for them between appointments—historically, at half a crown a time.
Sadly, local parents were unaware of the fact that permanent teeth, the first molars, erupt behind the baby teeth, and sometimes they were so badly decayed before they brought the child to the surgery suffering such severe pain that extraction was the only possible treatment. This was the worst possible start for a dentist-patient relationship.
Children who have regularly attended for dental check-ups or treatment are not upset at the thought of a dental appointment and have a much better prospect of taking an interest in their dental health throughout their lives. The system of school dental check-ups for pupils was of value, although one survey established that only one-third of those seen and advised to have necessary dental treatment followed that advice.
Sweets and sugary drinks have always caused damage to teeth, and I recall those vicious dummies—or comforters, as they were called—filled with sugary syrup, bathing the deciduous baby teeth with that damaging liquid. Sweets still seem to be blamed for most dental problems, but I do not intend to spend time on that aspect today, as I am sure others will. As a mother, I know how rapidly sweets become an addiction for children, and years ago I used to give advice that it is the 15 minutes after the sweet that matters, so it may be better for children to have a specific sweet time once a week, when they could have as many as they wanted, rather than the deceptive “just one” doing damage more often. Sweet drinks including an acidic element are a further problem.
In 1968, I was the first woman dentist ever appointed as a member of the Standing Dental Advisory Committee for England and Wales, and I served until 1976. I was an elected member of the General Dental Council from 1984 to 1986 and a governor of the Eastman Dental Hospital. I say that simply to make clear that I have never had any academic dental role, but was very involved as a basic national health practising dentist.
In 1988, I had the privilege of joining your Lordships’ House. I was particularly interested in the passage of the Health and Medicines Act 1988, and I moved Amendment 30 to retain free national health dental examinations for all. Realising that many Members of the House might not know much about the workings of national health dentistry, the day before the debate I spoke to as many Peers as I could find, asking that they attend and listen to the contributions before deciding how to vote. The responses were good and the debate was wide-ranging. My dental colleague, my noble friend Lord Colwyn, made an excellent contribution—I am grateful to him for speaking again today. Other speakers in 1988, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, were both very supportive in helping to draw attention to the fact that all forms of health screening were free for national health patients. The amendment to retain free national health dental examinations was carried by 118 to 97, a majority of 21.
Following this, the Deputy Chairman of Committees called Amendment 31 and I intervened to say that he had told us that if Amendment 30 were agreed to, 31 could not be called. His reply was somewhat revealing:
“That is quite right. I was so surprised at the last result”.—[Official Report, 19/7/1988; col. 1239.]
Sadly, when this went to the Commons, the amendment was reversed by 300 votes to 284 and financial privilege was attached, so we were not able to re-debate the matter. I believe that this was the beginning of the end of national health dentistry as we knew it. My husband did beautiful crown and bridge work and patients would often ask him, “If I paid more, could I get a better crown?”. His reply was always, “No, everyone gets the best crown I can do”. He was a gifted silversmith, with his own hallmark and a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths. He was one of many dentists with successful general national health dental practices really caring for their patients.
All national health dental treatment for children up to the age of 18 remains free now, but there are so many areas where there are very limited, if any, national health dental practices. The children no longer go along with their parents and are examined at the same time, as the parents are not going. There are, as I say, whole areas where NHS dental practices hardly exist. Last year, I was shocked to read that no NHS places for general anaesthetic surgical beds were available in Manchester, as all were taken by children requiring full clearances of their deciduous teeth.
Over some years, I have been asking both Written and Oral Questions on the difference in health patterns between Birmingham and Manchester, and the toothy answers are referred to as DMF—decayed, missing and filled. Birmingham has the best DMF and Manchester the worst. Apart from that—and I emphasise this—there is no difference in the health pattern. Birmingham has had a fluoridated water supply since the 1960s, so it has certainly been tried and tested over a long period. I emphasise that there is an optimal level which has to be constantly monitored and adjusted by the water authority by either adding or removing fluoride from the water supply to maintain this optimal level.
Australia has generally had fluoridated water supplies for many years. I visited a nephew of mine, a Sydney dentist who looks after the pupils at one of the big schools. He told me that he could tell by looking at their mouths the boys that came from country areas where the only water supply was rain water or river water. There was a markedly worse dental condition in those not benefiting from the controlled optimal-level fluoridated water supply. Time has moved on and there are now many fluoride toothpastes which help to maintain dental health, but optimal-level fluoridation of drinking water would be much more effective.
For a number of years, I have tabled Questions, usually for Written Answer, to establish the difference in general health and dental health between Manchester and Birmingham. I have chosen these cities as large successful cities which aim to provide their residents with the best possible healthcare. Birmingham has had a fluoridated water supply since the 1960s and Manchester has not. All health conditions in the two cities follow similar patterns. The one major exception is dental health. DMF in Birmingham is 0.8 and in Manchester—where it is the worst—it is 1.3.
Last year, I found it very disturbing to read that children in Manchester were taking up all general anaesthetic beds in order to clear their deciduous teeth. Apart from the pain and discomfort that these children would have suffered to reach this sad dental state, it will continue to cause problems, even when those teeth are all out, as the presence of the primary teeth maintains the space as the jaws enlarge to receive the larger secondary teeth. Many of the children who have had premature extractions will require lots of orthodontics to enable the secondary teeth to come into normal alignment.
My time is limited, so I shall conclude by quoting the recent statement from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council following a comprehensive study which makes clear the optimal and proper level of fluoridation for dental benefit without any adverse effect on general health. The statement that the council has put out is very strong and, as an Australian, I think I am entitled to quote it:
“It shows that community water fluoridation, as it’s used in Australia today, is effective at reducing tooth decay and is not associated with any general negative health effects”.
The headline states:
“With 60 years of data and 3000 studies”—
more than considered anywhere else in the world—
“Australia declares fluoride ‘completely safe’”.
I hope that we will really encourage the authorities here to look into this, as it would help children so much.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a retired dental surgeon, a fellow of the British Dental Association and vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society.
I thank my dental colleague, my noble friend Lady Gardner, for securing this debate. This is very timely, considering the extensive coverage that children’s tooth extractions received in the media just last weekend. This came after the number of youngsters admitted to hospitals to have rotten teeth removed hit a new high. Despite tooth decay being an almost entirely preventable disease, we now see 170 children undergo an unnecessary general anaesthetic because of it every single day. Such operations have cost the NHS £165 million since 2012. As someone who performed thousands of tooth extractions under a general anaesthetic in my dental career, I know as well as anyone that the cost of these procedures goes far beyond the financial impact on our health service: think of the pain and distress for the child, the lost sleep and school time, and the stress and time off work for the parents. Children in many parts of the country have to wait up to a year for their operation, and many kids end up spending months and months on painkillers and antibiotics. This really is not good enough in the 21st century in one of the richest countries in the world.
As the Minister will know, Scotland and Wales have achieved unprecedented improvements in their child oral health outcomes in recent years by introducing the pioneering national programmes, Childsmile and Designed to Smile. The British Dental Association has been calling for England to follow in the devolved Governments’ footsteps for years so that English children can benefit from these simple, tried-and-tested solutions.
Dentists welcomed the first step made in England with the recently launched Starting Well programme, but I share the BDA’s concerns that this new scheme is currently limited to some 13 local authorities in England. I understand that in London only 12 practices in Ealing are taking part in the scheme. This is in the context of well over 4,000 national dentists practising in the capital. So, although the scheme will reach some children in the areas with the worst outcomes, there will still be millions of others across England who will miss out. Will the Government look into expanding the scheme beyond the 13 initial sites so that more children in England can benefit from it?
The other scheme that has recently started is Dental Check by One, which is being championed by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry and is supported by the Chief Dental Officer. As the name suggests, the scheme aims to ensure that young children are taken to see a dentist before their first birthday. This is important so that the child becomes comfortable in a dental environment from an early age and so that parents can be given advice on how to take care of their offspring’s teeth. If a child’s first visit to a dental practice is traumatic—if they need a filling or an extraction—in many cases this will deter them from going to the dentist later in life. Therefore, it is crucial that their first check-up is a positive experience. With just 20% of children under the age of two having been to the dentist in the last year, it is certainly important that we raise awareness among parents of the importance of taking them as soon as their first teeth come through. However, we need to remember that the total amount of NHS dentistry commissioned in England is limited, and in fact NHS England commissions only enough of it to cover just over half the population. In many areas of the country, people are still struggling to find a dentist who is able to see new NHS patients.
According to a recent study by the BBC, 48% of NHS practices in England are not accepting new adult patients while 40% are not accepting new child patients. Saying that all parents should take their children to the dentist as soon as their teeth erupt is a great idea, but it will not become a reality until the Government ensure that enough NHS dentistry is commissioned for those who need it.
It is important that any national preventive programme is properly and sustainably funded. I understand that the Starting Well initiative will not be receiving any new funds, with all the money coming from existing dental budgets. Underfunding NHS dental services is similarly pointless. NHS dental budgets have gone down in real terms by 15% in the past seven years while patient charges have been going up at an inflation-busting pace. The effect is that every year hundreds of thousands of patients waste precious NHS resources seeking free help with dental pain at GP surgeries and A&E departments, along with an ever-increasing bill for children’s hospital tooth extractions.
Finally, I should like yet again to point out to the Committee that a cost-effective way of improving outcomes and reducing oral health inequalities is the wider use of water fluoridation. Colleagues will know that I have favoured this solution for many years, and we have heard about it from my noble friend Lady Gardner. The evidence for fluoridating water supplies is indisputable. It is safe and good for teeth, particularly in childhood. While the ultimate decision on whether to introduce fluoride into the water supply lies with local authorities, central government could do much more to facilitate local conversations about this and assist those councils which think that this is a measure that would work well in their area. I know that the Minister will have heard all these arguments before, but I hope that she will take them on board and pass them on to her colleagues in the department. Child tooth decay is preventable and it is high time that we started doing a better job of preventing it.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, 15 years ago, as I sat in the dentist’s chair for my annual check-up, my dentist said despondently that the patient before me had been a three year-old whose teeth he had extracted. Today this is not an out of the ordinary occurrence among children across the country. Children’s oral health has become a major public health issue, so I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this important debate.
As we have heard, 90% of child tooth decay is preventable, but it is an issue that affects 25% of five year-olds across England, and in some parts of the country it rises to more than 50%. Last year nearly 43,000 hospital operations were carried out to remove teeth in children and teenagers, which is equivalent to 170 operations a day. The excessive consumption of sugary food and drinks combined with poor oral hygiene is a major cause behind these cases.
Good oral health can help children to be more confident and perform better at school, and it can make a significant difference to their long-term oral health. Children with high levels of disease in their primary teeth run an increased risk of developing disease in their permanent teeth, so addressing this issue early can make a real difference to children’s lives. Visiting a dentist on a regular basis is essential to maintaining good oral health. It helps to ensure that oral health problems are identified at an early stage and is an opportunity for dentists to provide advice to parents and children about maintaining a good oral care routine and managing their diet. However, the statistics around dentist attendance are concerning. Many children aged between nought and 17 never see an NHS dentist. This is despite Public Health England’s advice that children should start having dental check-ups when their first teeth appear, normally at around six months.
What can we do to improve this situation? The first thing is to get the message out as widely as possible that not only should children be visiting the dentist but, crucially, NHS dental treatment is free for all children under the age of 18. Equally, if we are encouraging parents to take their children to the dentist regularly, we must ensure that dental practices themselves are welcoming, friendly places where parents feel comfortable. The oral heath profession has to play its role too. To tackle the problem of child tooth decay, everyone needs to work together: health visitors, midwives, community nurses, early years workers, pharmacists and others all have the opportunity to engage with children and their parents. It is essential that they all provide consistent and accurate advice about maintaining good oral health.
Among others, the Faculty of Dental Surgery has called for oral health to be included in health workers’ training and professional development. This is not about training health visitors to be dentists, but about enabling them to identify signs that a child may have an oral health problem and to signpost them to further help. Perhaps the Minister can indicate what the Government are doing to ensure that the public health workforce is properly trained in the importance of oral health and how they can support children and parents in maintaining it.
We need also to address the variation in dental access across the country. Last year, the media reported on the difficulty that people in some areas have in accessing treatment—areas such as Cornwall, where more than 14,000 people are on a waiting list to register with an NHS dental practice. While NHS dental treatment is free for children, if parents themselves do not go to the dentist, for whatever reason, this can be a significant barrier to children’s attendance.
Public Health England has given direction on a range of evidence-based oral health activities that local authorities should be implementing, as demonstrated in Scotland’s Childsmile initiative. However, there appears to be limited national momentum to ensure that all LGAs are undertaking their responsibility for child oral health and prevention. What action are the Government taking to ensure that all LGAs are actively implementing Public Health England’s recommendations at local level? How many LGAs have sustained programmes for tooth brushing and toothpaste distribution, community-based fluoride varnish programmes and supervised tooth brushing in nurseries? What are the Government’s plans to improve oral health education so that parents and children understand the impact of sugar on teeth and the importance of a good oral health regime?
The good news is that child tooth decay is a problem we can all solve, if we work together and get simple things right to prevent the appalling suffering, anguish, loss of school time, depression and unnecessary pain that children are going through today.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for bringing this debate to the Grand Committee today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the important issue of children’s oral health. I refer to my interests as listed in the register of interests.
Looking back over a number of years, I see that attention has continued to be drawn to the impact of sugar on children’s oral health, together with the interlinked growing problem of obesity facing our young children. I wish to take up the issue of advertising, particularly where young people are a captive audience at popular programme times. Good advertising would certainly help to promote the importance of good oral hygiene and support lots of winning smiles.
I welcome the improvement in children’s oral health over the past 20 years, but, unfortunately, 12% of three year-olds still experience tooth decay. We know all too well that dental decay is the top cause of childhood hospital admission for five to nine year-olds, with hospital trusts now spending £35 million on extractions of multiple teeth for the under-18s. It is a massive cost to the NHS. To put it in context, twice as many under-10s have to have extractions as young people who break their arms—that speaks volumes. Significant oral health inequalities continue to exist for children who live in deprived communities when compared with those who live in affluent areas, and this must be addressed. I highlight also those children with disabilities, who have even poorer outcomes.
Unfortunately, young children who have to undergo tooth extraction, and those with high levels of disease, have an increased risk of disease in their permanent teeth. Local authorities are now responsible for commissioning public health services for children and young people, and have the power to consult on proposals, such as water fluoridation schemes and intervention. That does not require behaviour change by individuals, and as such, choice should be offered.
What can be done to improve children’s dental attendance? An important strand must be to work with and support external partners collectively in continual preventive care, especially for looked-after children and children from families living in poverty. It is vital to raise awareness of the fact that children should visit the dentist at least once a year and to make sure that everybody realises that it is free and that children should have check-ups in the first 12 months of life. In particular, I refer to the new “Dental Check by One” campaign, which should have more widespread and prominent advertising.
Close ties with primary and secondary schools are vital. They should promote good oral health and highlight any issues around reducing sugar consumption in food, snacks, drinks, energy drinks and fruit juices. It is estimated that children consume around three times more sugar than the recommended maximum amount. Importantly, teenagers have the highest intake of all age groups, consuming some 50% more sugar on average. For awareness, surely clear teaspoon labelling is needed from our manufacturers, who we hope will come forward in support and give a real step change to their packaging.
The Government have set out a pilot scheme in 75 practices, looking at incentivising care, but many families wish to see a much bigger and quicker rollout, together with a hard-hitting media and advertising campaign that does not only focus on oral health, but targets the obesity challenge. Both of those represent major public issues facing the UK, which could be incorporated into a coherent national strategy.
I want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy—who is not here today—for answering my Written Question on what plans there are to introduce new initiatives to improve dental health in areas of deprivation. I thank him for his reply, referring to the “Starting Well” programme. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, the Minister, has any information to hand with the latest number of dental practices now wishing to join that programme.
Finally, even now, it is sad that 41.5% of children aged nought to 17 did not visit an NHS dentist in the 12 months up to 30 September 2017 and 78.7% of children aged between one and two did not visit a dentist. As I referred to earlier, in 2015-16, the cost to the NHS of tooth extractions in young children aged nought to 19 was £50.5 million; that amount must be reduced as quickly as possible. I hope therefore that the Government will consider investing more—not only in prevention, but in earlier intervention.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for tabling the debate. I have a number of interests to declare: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association; I am the chair of ukactive; and last year I published a report on duty of care in sport, which I was asked to complete by the right honourable Tracey Crouch MP, the Minister for Sport in another place, where oral health was reported to me from several different groups of people. I also spoke at a periodontology conference last year, as declared on my entry in the register of interests, where I met Professor Ian Needleman from UCL. That sparked an interesting conversation about the oral health of athletes, which led me to consider the wider impact it could have on the future of elite sport. In my personal experience—without going into too much detail—I found it hard to eat or tolerate any food in my stomach on race days, so I travelled everywhere with a toothbrush. It was not always possible to clean my teeth after I had been sick; my teeth show signs of decay because of that.
Every major Games I have attended has a polyclinic, which includes doctors, opticians and dentists. At the London Games, the polyclinic was designed and built to treat 200 athletes a day; from seven in the morning to 11 at night, it was full. In 2012, it had 3,220 “encounters” with athletes. The biggest proportion—52%—of those were for musculoskeletal issues, but second on the list was dental issues, which affected 30% of athletes. That number is very similar to previous Games, as well as Rio 2016. In their research study, Needleman et al found that 300 athletes showed high levels of disease, and 20% reported that this had had a serious negative impact on training or performance. It is often assumed that athletes will be at the peak of physical fitness, so those numbers are quite shocking. In this context, future consideration needs to be given to the consumption of sports or energy drinks, gels and other products which are invaluable for athletes in training, but come with unforeseen consequences. As an older athlete on a programme, you may get advice on what to use, but as a young person you may not. There are some sports programmes that have quite young athletes and I wonder whether lessons on oral health should be specifically included in the induction process for young athletes. While lots of athletes are checked for various health issues before they go to the Games, my teeth were never looked at. What consideration has been given, beyond the soft drinks levy, to whether children should be allowed to purchase energy drinks, and what encouragement could be given to help them to understand the products they contain?
The figures on the number of children going into hospital for extractions are, quite frankly, shocking—not just because of the numbers, but the cost that has on the NHS and the long-term impact on children’s health. It is not just about cleaning your teeth or going to the dentist; it is also about what you consume. I am very supportive of the Government’s childhood obesity strategy and the soft drinks levy. It could be incredibly useful, but many companies are changing their products to just go under the limit of what they would be taxed on.
In a chance discussion, a friend who is a governor of a primary school said that they have a large number of children on free school meals. More than 15% of children in state schools are eligible for free school meals. When they introduced a breakfast club to increase attendance, they found virtually all those children had very poor oral health. Now they fundraise to buy toothbrushes to keep in school, so children clean their teeth after the free breakfast, and they also encourage them to clean them at lunch time.
We also need to think about children’s activity. If you are eating a poor diet and drinking too many fizzy drinks, you are not going have the energy to be active. This has a huge impact on our children’s health. I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to the research on what happens during school holidays. For children on free school meals, many do not eat in the summer holidays. It is also very easy to eat a poor diet of pre-prepared meals, which can be high in sugar or salt, or to eat fast food. A charity called StreetGames has set up a programme called Fit and Fed, which ensures that children have access not only to activity but to free, nutritious meals. I chair ukactive, which has produced research showing that, in the summer break, there is a much greater divide between the fitness levels of children from poorer socio-economic backgrounds and those who are more affluent. The poorest 25% of primary school children experience a drop in their fitness levels 18 times greater than the richest 25%. So it is not just oral health—it is what we eat and what we drink—and ukactive is working with partners to open up dozens of school sites across the country this summer to address issues of inactivity among children. We are also going to be looking at how we can educate children on oral health
The inactivity crisis that we are facing, coupled with things like poor oral health, is significantly limiting our children’s opportunities. I realise that the things I have talked about this afternoon cut across a number of government departments, and many issues are for other Ministers, but this is an important area where cross-government work is vital.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Many of us, though not all, will be in the fortunate position of having to clean some, if not all, of our teeth. One of the incentives to look after my teeth was the unwelcome annual inspection at school by the local authority dentist. I remember that, at the end of the day, the school secretary would come in and give out forms to every child who needed some dental attention. The parents of those unlucky enough to be given a form had two options: one, to agree to an appointment with the school dentist; two, to undertake to take the child to their own NHS dentist. In the 1950s, not sending the form back was not an option. Of course, in the 1950s, with sweets still rationed and ice cream soda a rare treat, teeth were under less threat than today.
I lived, as did many of us, in a relatively golden age of dentistry, where it was universal and free at the point of delivery. My own parents prioritised toothbrushes and toothpaste. In England today, there are many gaps in the availability of National Health Service dentists which need to be filled and, in the absence of any regular school inspections, many children and young people are unaware of the state of their teeth until toothache demands the attention of a dentist.
Of course, many parents ensure that their children take care of their teeth through regular brushing and taking care with their diet. They make sure that, for example, their children’s teeth are not regularly submerged in fizzy drinks or coated with chocolate. However, the rise in the need for very young children to have all or some of their milk teeth extracted has a range of very heavy costs, both in human and financial terms.
Many Members will recall when Margaret Thatcher removed free school milk in 1971, earning, sadly, the title “Milk Snatcher”. This policy was eventually reversed and, today, every child under five is entitled to free milk. When we had a similar debate last year, the then Education Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said that he would look into whether we could provide free school milk for all primary school children, and there was a large article in the Telegraph. Could the Minister tell us where we are up to with the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on free school milk for every primary school child?
The area I live in, the north-west, has some of the highest rates of tooth decay. About 15 years ago, my local authority decided to introduce what is called dental milk, where a medically correct amount of fluoride is put in the milk. Parents had the choice of their child having a carton of dental milk or a carton of ordinary milk. The parents of 99% of the children in my school chose the dental milk. I think 10 local authorities introduced it. When replying, could the Minister tell us whether any evaluation has been undertaken of the dental milk project and where we are up to on its development? I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, talk about fluoride in the water supply, and this might be another initiative that we might look at to help prevent dental decay in our children.
It is difficult to imagine how awful it must be for a two year-old to suffer the trauma of hospital admission, general anaesthesia and the extraction of their teeth. The parents will also pay a heavy emotional price as they support their child before, during and after the procedure. In financial terms, the cost of what is a major operation is considerable, and inevitably takes scarce resources away from surgery that is less avoidable.
We all know how difficult it is for adults to get on the list for an NHS dentist in some areas, and how many adults end up paying for regular check-ups, or paying the price for not having them. What we do know is that many parents do not seem to be aware that dental care, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, is free for children and that although 60% of practices accept children, 40% do not—40%.
We are always asking today how we can reduce pressures on the NHS. Tooth decay is the leading reason for hospital admissions of young children and the most preventable. Dealing with this issue would help to relieve those pressures on the NHS. I hope that as a result of this really important debate, the Government might come forward with some new initiatives which will deal once and for all with the problem of young children and teeth.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I recall school dentists, and indeed our family dentist, who went by the wonderful name of Mr Slaughter.
At this point in this excellent short debate, the awful facts about the state of our children’s teeth in England have been laid before all of us, including the Minister, who I think, like me, must be hanging her head with shame that we are failing our children on such a scale. The fact that so many youngsters suffer from tooth decay and that so many require extractions at such a young age is a badge of dishonour for our health service and for our Ministers. We have failed to confront a wholly preventable disease.
This is not only a childhood problem. We are condemning a generation of children to reach adulthood feeling self-conscious and inhibited by the state of their teeth. That will certainly affect their social relations and indeed could affect their job prospects. The evidence suggests that for far too long the Government have tended to view oral health as an optional extra. For the children lining up for tooth extractions in our hospitals, tooth decay has long-term consequences. Whether they grow up to become solicitors, receptionists, hairdressers, footballers or whatever, the state of their mouths can affect their life chances. In June 2016, a YouGov poll for the British Dental Association revealed that 77% of respondents felt that decayed teeth or bad breath would hinder a candidate’s chances of securing employment in public or client-facing roles, while 62% felt that applicants with visibly decayed teeth, missing teeth or bad breath would be disadvantaged in securing any role and it would hinder their promotion prospects.
The inequalities in tooth decay are stark. For five year-olds in the most deprived areas such as Blackburn and Darwen, 56% have tooth decay. They are almost seven times more likely to have decay in their teeth than their peers in, for example, Jeremy Hunt’s constituency in Waverley, where the rate is 8%. Children from lower income families are much more likely to have dental disease than other children of the same age. At five years old, 21% of children who receive free school meals will have dental decay, while the rate is 11% among all other children; yet according to the Royal College of Surgeons, tooth decay is 90% preventable.
I know that the Minister will tell us about the Government’s new preventive oral health initiative known as Starting Well, but I have to say that when I look at the details of the programme, I cannot see how it will have the same impact that the campaigns being run in Wales and Scotland are having. They are leading the way on improving child oral health with their early intervention prevention initiatives known as Designed to Smile and Childsmile. They have led to unprecedented improvements in outcomes over recent years. If one were being really unkind, one might even suggest that the Government scheme looks a bit like window dressing.
I have some questions for the Minister and I want to echo some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Why is this scheme being limited to 13 local authorities? Why is it being funded from within existing dental spend when we know that dentistry is chronically underfunded, down 15% since 2010-11? Why has no new money been found when we can all see that that expenditure would fall squarely within the invest-to-save category? Can the Minister confirm that what the Government are doing is asking dental surgeries in these local authorities to volunteer to take part in this scheme? Is that an effective way to proceed? Is there a plan or a budget for a wider rollout of the scheme? If there is, when will that happen, and if there is not, why not? Lastly, what else is there?
Fluoridation needs to be made easier. It has been mentioned by several speakers in the debate, who have been quite right to say that it is a cost-effective public health initiative. I feel that I have to say that, not only because other noble Lords have mentioned it but because my noble friend Lord Hunt is so passionate about this matter—he would not forgive me if I did not mention fluoridation.
Reducing children’s sugar consumption is of course crucial. The average five year-old consumes their own weight in sugar every year. While the soft drinks industry levy is a welcome first step, we need the Government to take much more decisive action in this area, particularly around advertising, marketing and price promotions involving high-sugar products. New restrictions should be introduced on advertising high-sugar products before the 9 pm watershed on television and online, something which we on this side have pledged to do. Would the Minister like to take this opportunity to pledge to do the same?
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on tabling this important debate and I commend her for her persistence over many years in these matters. I thank all other speakers and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks in response to the debate.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I apologise at the beginning for the fact that I will have to speak quite fast because I do not have very long and have quite a lot to say. I do not want people to think that I am galloping through it because I am not interested in what I am saying—I am.
I congratulate my noble friend on securing time for this important debate today, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about what the Government will do in this area. We all recognise that poor oral health for children can have a devastating impact on a child’s quality of life.
We need to keep in mind that, overall, children’s oral health is better than it has ever been, with the most recent data from 2015 showing that 75% of five year-old children in England are now decay free. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of five year-old children who showed signs of decay fell by approximately 10%. This is fantastic progress, but it still leaves 25% of five year-old children experiencing decay, which is unacceptable. As was said by my noble friends Lord Colwyn and Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, one child needing to have tooth extractions under general anaesthetic due to poor oral health is one child too many. This is why improving children’s oral health is a priority for this Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that the Government do not feel dentistry to be important. However, our manifesto made clear our commitment to support NHS dentistry, improve coverage and achieve better outcomes, especially for deprived children.
The key issue now for child oral health is that of inequality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned. Active dental disease is now clustered in deprived groups and areas. Dentists can and do play an important role in improving oral health, but patients understanding the wider issues involved—from diet and good oral hygiene to the role that fluoride can play—is crucial to progress.
The good news is that a good diet and good oral hygiene, together with regular visits to the dentist and access to clinically proven prevention measures such as fluoride, go a long way to eliminating dental disease. The bad news is that, as we all know, the issues surrounding children’s poor oral health are complex, and this means that there is no easy or quick fix for those currently left behind.
Dentists have a vital role to play in providing regular check-ups for children, giving important messages to parents about self-care at home and providing evidence-based interventions, such as fluoride varnish applications, alongside any necessary treatment. Delivering Better Oral Health, Public Health England’s key guidance to dentists, is clear on the need for regular applications of fluoride varnish for all children at recommended intervals. I am delighted that, in 2016-17, 4.7 million children had courses of treatment for fluoride varnish applications, a 13.9% increase on the previous year. Fluoride varnish applications now equate to 41.2% of all child treatments, making them the most common dental treatment for children.
Every noble Lord who spoke today talked about fluoridation in the water. The clinical case for fluoride’s effect on oral health and the benefits of water fluoridation is substantial. The Government and Public Health England would warmly welcome a decision by a local area to fluoridate the water supply. However, such decisions must be made locally. Local authorities were given responsibility for water fluoridation in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Given the level of debate that water fluoridation has historically aroused, unlike fluoride toothpaste or varnish, it is important that there is clear local ownership of decisions. However, the case continues to be made by Public Health England that we want as many local areas as possible to make sure that it happens. Water fluoridation benefits the overall oral health of the population. NHS England already bears the cost of delivering fluoride where this is done through a dental intervention such as applying fluoride to teeth, and there are no plans for the costs of water fluoridation to be met centrally.
Turning to the issue of access to a dentist, NHS England commissions primary dental services and has a duty to commission services to meet local need. In the 12-month period ending 30 September 2017, 6.8 million children were seen. This equates to 58.8% of the child population. We appreciate that some areas have access difficulties, even for children. I know that NHS England is committed to improving the commissioning of primary care dentistry within the overall vision of the five-year forward view.
I want to mention some of the specific actions being taken to improve access and the care that dentists can give patients once seen. We are committed to introducing a new NHS dental contract, which will improve the oral health of the population and further increase access to NHS dentistry. Seventy-five high-street practices continue to test a prevention-focused clinical pathway, which includes offering all patients an oral health assessment and advice on diet and good oral hygiene. Follow-up appointments are offered where necessary to support patients’ self-care and carry out any necessary preventive treatments.
The new approach aims to increase patient access by paying dentists for the number of patients cared for, not just for the treatment delivered, as per the current contract. It is important to be clear that the scheme will have to demonstrate that it can maintain access and improve oral health, including that of children, in a way that is sustainable for practices, patients and NHS commissioners before any decision will be taken on a wider national rollout.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes talked about children not attending dentists, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and many others mentioned the Scottish initiative. However, I would like to talk about the wider reform of the current approach. NHS England is developing schemes focused specifically on children in areas of high dental need.
As it has already been mentioned in the debate, I am sure that many here are familiar with the Starting Well programme. Noble Lords seem to feel that it will not be sufficient, but it is aiming to improve oral health outcomes for young children in deprived areas. The programme will work in 13 high-priority areas, with the aim of increasing the provision of evidence-based advice and interventions for all children under the age of five, but especially for those who do not regularly visit a dentist. This will, where appropriate, include outreach to children not currently in touch with dental practices.
Alongside that, NHS England is also developing a complementary Starting Well core offer. This is a commissioning approach designed to facilitate increased access and early preventive care for young children anywhere in the country where local commissioners decide it is needed. I understand that this offer will be made available to commissioners by NHS England later this year. It will bring to a wider audience the key message that I know the Chief Dental Officer passionately champions—the importance of starting oral health care and dental attendance as young as possible.
Ensuring access to dental services and treatment is the responsibility of NHS England. However, it is important also to talk about the role of Public Health England in improving children’s oral health more generally. This area of public health is very much a priority for Public Health England. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about a joined-up approach to dentistry and other areas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, talked about the LGA implementing Public Health England’s recommendations. Public Health England has established the Children’s Oral Health Improvement Programme Board, which brings together a wide range of stakeholders and has an extensive work programme. Public Health England, through the board, co-ordinates all the work being taken forward across the system on improving child oral health. One of the outputs has been the updating of the “red book” to ensure that all new parents receive clear messages about the importance of good oral hygiene and early dental attendance.
Many noble Lords have spoken about sugar. Prevention is a key part of the work that Public Health England leads. Diet is very important—particularly sugar intake, which is the leading cause of dental decay. The sugar levy and the sugar reformulation programme are therefore very important in improving oral health, as well as having an impact on the wider issues of obesity.
Following on from that, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, mentioned energy drinks and the problems that athletes have had. As we know, energy drinks can be high in caffeine and sugar. Alongside our measures to reduce sugar, we will continue to monitor the situation and look at any emerging scientific evidence on the consumption of energy drinks. I hear what the noble Baroness says. As I said, we will monitor this. Since we published the plan on the sugar levy, there has been real progress. The levy has become law and will come into effect in April 2018. Public Health England has formulated a comprehensive sugar reduction programme with the aim of a 20% reduction in sugar in key foods.
My noble friend Lady Redfern talked about what schools can do. We expect all schools to have healthy eating policies. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked about milk in schools. Although nutrients in milk are useful for healthy teeth, milk does not per se improve teeth, and calcium, which is needed for healthy growth in teeth and bones, can be found in a number of foods. However, poor diet is a key risk factor of poor dental health, and all children are encouraged to reduce their intake of free sugars. Milk is a safe alternative to sugar and sweetened drinks, is safe for children’s teeth and is recommended for delivering better oral health in the evidence-based toolkit for prevention.
Lord Storey
If the Minister does not have the information about dental milk, could she write to me about it?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I will write to the noble Lord on that.
I have only a minute to go, which is a nightmare. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about the Starting Well programme. The overall aim of Starting Well is to reduce oral health inequalities. The programme will operate in 13 identified high-priority areas and will be funded through expected dental underspends. NHS England launched the programme in September 2017 with a series of events around the country attended by 158 dental practice teams. Practices have been applying to join the programme, and over £3 million of funding has been agreed locally to support it to date.
My noble friends Lady Redfern and Lord Colwyn talked about the fact that only 20% of two year-olds are being seen by dentists. Public Health England recommend early attendance, as well as an appropriate diet and strong oral health hygiene as the foundation of oral health. This message is being given to parents at the very start of their children’s lives through the personal child health record.
I feel that I have left several questions out and, if I have, of course will write to noble Lords. In conclusion, I hope that I have demonstrated our strong commitment to improving oral health outcomes for children and ensuring that children have access to dental services and important preventive advice. Please let us carry on talking about this, including outside the Chamber, when I have all the time in the world.
MV “Empire Windrush”
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the arrival of MV Empire Windrush.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing this afternoon. The Times newspaper of 24 May 1948 carried the news of Princess Elizabeth’s visit to Coventry, Winston Churchill’s jeep overturning in a mishap, and an aircraft crashing on to the main road from Margate to London. There was a news story about Commonwealth citizens, as Parliament had been considering what was to become the British Nationality Act, but the Times failed to record that this was the day when the MV “Empire Windrush” left Jamaica for the United Kingdom with 493 passengers, who had paid 28 pounds and 10 shillings for the one-way fare to move to the United Kingdom to work. Britain was about to change permanently and change for the better.
Some of the passengers were, of course, former servicemen who had been part of the 8,000 volunteers from the West Indies who served in World War II and had been stationed in the UK. The “Windrush” was not in fact the first vessel to come, as in March 1947 the “Ormonde” sailed from Jamaica to Liverpool with 108 passengers, and on 21 December 1947 the “Almanzora” docked in Southampton. But to quote the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, in his book Never Again, speaking of the arrival of the “Windrush” on 22 June 1948,
“the great wave of post-war migration from the Caribbean to the United Kingdom can symbolically be said to have begun with that fateful voyage. The history of the black diaspora in Britain begins here”.
In 1948, the non-white population was about 30,000 of a population of about 50 million, mainly in port cities of Liverpool, Cardiff and London. Just over 1,000 followed the 393 of the “Windrush”, and in 1951 it was 2,200. In the 1950s, 250,000 migrants had come from the Caribbean and, by 1962, the non-white population was 500,000—mainly Caribbean, Indian and Pakistani. Three-fifths of that number were Caribbean. While the British Nationality Act was being considered as the “Windrush” landed, that huge migration was more due to the economic situation in the West Indies, the 1944 hurricane and the United States passing legislation restricting migration from the Caribbean. However, I would go further than the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who speaks of the history of black diaspora beginning with this voyage. It is the history of modern, multi-racial Britain that begins here—or, as the title of a book by Mike and Trevor Phillips puts it, Windrush: The Irresistible Rise of Multi-Racial Britain.
This was a seminal event in our modern history. Of course, black populations had settled here after the First World War, so when the recent film “Darkest Hour” depicts the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, speaking to ordinary people on the Tube, which may not be accurate, an educated West Indian migrant quoting Shakespeare to the Prime Minister could very well be. Little did I know when I moved to Clapham last year that for a few weeks underneath Clapham Common, in the deep shelter, many of the passengers of “MV Windrush” slept their first nights. Within three weeks, they all had jobs, and they had settled around Brixton, as on Coldharbour Lane was the nearest labour exchange. They had fought for Britain, for the motherland, and they now arrived to rebuild Britain.
This was the first mass, visible migration to the United Kingdom, which is what differentiates it from the previous Irish and Jewish migration. While of course these groups faced prejudices, this migration was to introduce Britons to race relations. Today, 15% of the UK population are black and minority ethnic, and “Windrush” is for many of them seen as their beginning. That is why a model of the ship was part of the wonderful opening ceremony to the 2012 Olympics, as it has shaped modern Britain—a modern Britain that, in the 1980s, looked so very different to a young girl peering out of the car window when being driven through Highfields in Leicester from monocultural Rutland to get my school shoes. Notting Hill would not be the same without the annual Trinidadian-inspired carnival, and it saddens me that this street festival is not viewed with the same generosity as festivals such as Glastonbury. Having lived in both Ghana and Trinidad and Tobago, Britain’s diaspora means for me that these experiences are now not only in photographs but part of my everyday story. Who we are as Britons has and will continue to change, but “Windrush” is indeed something that needs to be celebrated.
I have learned so much from Britain’s black community, in particular their gracious response to suffering, oppression and, still too often today, racism. For what they found in 1948 was not a motherland ready to receive a child from far away, but rejection, mistrust, loneliness and, all too often, violence. I am aware that many in your Lordships’ House can describe these experiences from a personal perspective, but of all that I have watched and listened to in preparing for today’s debate, this quote from Ben Bousquet has struck me. In 1957, he was followed by the BBC’s “Tonight” programme in his vain search for lodgings. This was the first programme on race relations on British television. He said: “It was an age of tremendous cruelty to black people—it was an unforgiving time”. That last phrase struck me, and I am so pleased to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans among today’s speakers, as David Goodhart, in his book The British Dream writes:
“Many churches, even, closed their doors to these often piously Christian people, who had to set up their own black churches—a lost opportunity to reverse the slow decline of the Anglican Church”.
There are of course exceptions, such as the Speaker’s Chaplain, the reverend Dr Rose Hudson-Wilkin, but mainly Caribbean migrants set up their own churches, such as Bishop John Francis, who founded Ruach Ministries in Brixton, where thousands have attended.
Many people today in the United Kingdom are unaware of this cruelty, so celebrating such an anniversary is also about teaching people about the past. A few years ago, I attended the reopening of a black-led church in Lozells in Birmingham. During the refurbishment period the congregation had met in the local girls grammar school, so the headmistress—a lady in her late 50s, looking to me rather like Miss Jean Brodie—took the opportunity to speak when presented with her bouquet. With tears in her eyes, she asked for forgiveness. She said she was so sorry and had not realised that people had not been welcomed by the Church of England and so had formed churches such as this.
After such treatment, the lack of representation of the leadership of this community in your Lordships’ House, compared with 30 Anglicans, is most troubling and is a matter that the Prime Minister could look at in the run-up to this anniversary. But in addition to forgiveness, there needs to be restoration, so that we can truly celebrate this moment when modern multiracial Britain began. I ask Her Majesty’s Government to consider how to provide a permanent marker in central London to celebrate such a significant day and event, especially as we are talking about celebrating the arrival of a boat while metres away from the Thames. I am aware that the Government take the view that if the public want such a reminder, they should raise the funds, but I hope that there are central government funds to support events this year.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking the lead on this anniversary and for my recent meeting with him, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Will he agree to reach out to and convene other interested people, including those from the British Caribbean population, to hear what events they would like this year and whether they agree that some enduring, permanent recognition is needed of Windrush Day?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on securing this debate and on her excellent speech, every word of which I agreed with. I am delighted to pay my tribute to our friends from Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies who chose to make their home in the United Kingdom, and to thank them, their children and their grandchildren for the huge contribution that they have made to the well-being and enrichment of our nation. We think particularly of nurses in hospitals, staff on our public transport and in all our public services, artists and musicians, high-achieving sports men and women, and, more recently, trade union leaders and Members in the House of Commons and this House. It is a privilege to share the speakers list this afternoon with such distinguished Members of this House, particularly those with Caribbean origin. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon had hoped to take part, but has been prevented from doing so by a church commitment.
Alongside so much good will and positive feeling towards people whose origins are in the Caribbean, I hope I may be forgiven for striking a slightly discordant note by raising the question of how the Home Office is treating a number of long-settled, retirement-age UK residents of Caribbean origin. One particular case—there are others—is that of a 61 year-old lady, called Paulette Wilson, who lives in Wolverhampton. She came to Britain from Jamaica in 1968 and was initially looked after by her grandparents. She went to primary and secondary school and has a British daughter and grandchild. She worked and paid taxes here for most of her life, and at one stage she worked as a cook in the House of Commons.
Under the terms of the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain. Paulette Wilson never applied for a passport because she assumed she would not need one if she did not intend to travel abroad. One day, she got a letter from the Home Office telling her to register each month at the Solihull immigration centre. While she was there on a visit, officials declared that she was an illegal immigrant, had her carted off to the appalling Yarl’s Wood immigration removal complex and told her that she would be deported—presumably back to Jamaica, which she had not visited since she left as a child almost 50 years before. Fortunately, Paulette’s MP—Emma Reynolds—and the Refugee and Migrant Centre in Wolverhampton both intervened. At last, she has now been given leave to remain, although she has lost benefits for the past two years, as well as her flat, and has to rely on financial support from her daughter.
Similar cases recently reported in the media include that of Anthony Bryan, a 60 year-old painter and decorator who has lived in Britain since he arrived from Jamaica as an eight year-old child. He was also declared an illegal immigrant and sent to a detention centre. Home Office staff went as far as booking him on a flight to Jamaica, which was only cancelled after interventions by an immigration lawyer and his local MP, Kate Osamor. She described his situation as “barbaric” and said:
“People are left wondering: how can someone who has done so much for the community be treated like a piece of rubbish? Why send people to detention when they have done nothing wrong?”.
Your Lordships will recall that in 2012, the then Home Secretary announced a “hostile environment for immigrants”. This has clearly led to overzealous interventions by officials. I have mentioned just two cases today, but there are many others; they will not have the good fortune of excellent local MPs taking up their cases.
I hope the Minister will be able to say that that hostility has been abandoned and that immigrants who are here lawfully are welcome and appreciated. Surely the Home Office could bring itself to offer Paulette Wilson, and others treated in a similar way, a proper apology?
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lady Benjamin for raising this issue in the last few days.
About 70 years ago, the steamship “Empire Windrush” docked at Tilbury, carrying with it the hopes and dreams of hundreds of young men and women from the Caribbean. Nothing like this had happened before. Here was an event when people from the margins of the Empire were coming to build a new life in the metropolitan centre. The arrival of “Empire Windrush” is historical in that over the years it changed the master/servant relationship that Britain had enjoyed in the colonies.
It is worth casting our minds back to that part of history. There was devastation in Britain, inflicted by the war. Britain’s role as a global power was declining, with changes in the former colonies and at home. The country was trapped in the old idea of itself. There was little consideration of a genuine migration policy and the settlement of new arrivals. The first arrivals were greeted with the optimistic assumption that Britain shedding its colonial legacy would turn it into a true melting pot. In those days, there was no such thing as immigration formalities. Commonwealth citizens were British subjects and had a right to enter the United Kingdom. It was generally assumed that the many racial, cultural and religious groups would be assimilated into a new whole—a single people with similar ideals, attitudes and values.
The policymakers never thought that identity would be an issue. New arrivals would simply do as the Romans do. They would fit in neatly and assimilate. Little thought was given to the impact of racism and economic marginalisation, or that people would want to retain their cultural heritage. The resurgence of the extreme right demonstrated that the process was not automatic or inevitable. For those of European ancestry, there was considerable assimilation into the economic and political life of the community. Caribbean migrants, followed by Asian groups, retain their identities to a greater extent.
Many noble Lords and the Government want to make plans to celebrate this 70th anniversary, and we would all welcome that. The point I want to stress is that despite so many drawbacks, progress has been made on many fronts, but this does not mean that discrimination has been successfully eliminated and that prejudice no longer exists. It is important that we celebrate the way in which we have safeguards to ensure that this does not happen and that we have policies to deal with these ugly features.
Who in their right mind in those early days of migration would have imagined that this country would promote legislation to ensure equality of opportunity for all of its citizens with an emphasis on race, disability, gender, age, faith and sexual orientation? We must never forget the contributions of people like Fenner Brockway, Roy Jenkins, Lord David Pitt, Lord Chitnis, Lord Boyle, the former Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod and the famous cricketer Lord Learie Constantine, my noble friend Lord Lester and organisations like Campaign Against Racial Discrimination, all of whom worked tirelessly towards this end. I am so pleased that we have on the speakers list today the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, the first black chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. We must also not forget the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, who despite her family tragedy has continued to play a positive role in building a decent society.
We now see a cultural pluralism that has emerged. If this is the legacy of Commonwealth migration, we should welcome it. The legacy has demonstrated that if properly handled, migration is to be valued and promoted, not regarded as a source of fear. A progressive liberal approach would value differences and cultural pluralism. However, despite these reasons for welcoming immigration, few other political issues raise the same tensions and emotions as immigration and its implications for “Britishness”.
I conclude by saying that we have an opportunity to recognise the contribution that Commonwealth citizens have made to this country. It is time to reflect on the positive legacy of the MV “Empire Windrush” and to celebrate the achievements of a proud and diverse society. The best time to beat our drum will be at the CHOGM conference in April this year.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, does us all a great service by initiating this debate and inviting us to consider a number of significant issues.
The late Professor Stuart Hall, an inspiration to so many artists and academics, scholars and politicians across the world, who arrived in Britain from Jamaica in 1951 as a Rhodes scholar, was a great chronicler of some of society’s contradictory approaches to racial and cultural identities. The ability to hold two or more conflicting views or sensibilities is a hallmark of attitudes towards racial politics, whether those of the general public, the press or politicians and policymakers. Anniversaries may be counted on to bring those tensions to the fore.
The entreaties of the British Government of the day drew a positive response from the Caribbean, Africa and Asia, as they did in the First World War and in the Second World War: “Come and help the mother country rebuild its shattered services and lay the foundations for new ones”. Yet as noble Lords have pointed out, the reactions to the small band of 20th century pioneers on the MV “Empire Windrush” was not exclusively welcoming, not even from the very politicians who had invited them. However, it is also important to state that the reception was not uniformly hostile either.
Contradictory attitudes mean that migrants and their descendants may be both demonised and valorised at the same time by politicians and newspapers without missing a beat. Significant achievements in the arts, science and sport may be both praised and written off as “political correctness gone mad”, depending on an editorial or political whim. Any academic wishing to write about the purpose and impact of the memorialisation of landmark events and anniversaries will find some rich objects of study this year. There are the two stages of women’s demand for the right to vote being acknowledged, as well as the end of the First World War and 70 years of the NHS.
Given our demonstrable desire to commemorate, what is it that we are seeking to achieve? How may we ensure that, in the interests of historical accuracy, we acknowledge the pain as well as the pleasure—the tension between achievement and suffering, and between racism and acceptance—afforded by remembering, without souring the whole experience? We should embrace the challenges and seek resolutions to them, not try to avoid them.
Starting from those iconic black and white photographic images of arrival at Tilbury docks, we need to ensure that women’s roles and voices are foregrounded equally alongside men’s. Let us be diligent in our research and seek out those women, here and overseas, and identify their part in this history whenever there are exhibitions or discussions about those settlers.
There are also wider stories from 1948 in terms of a wide spectrum of experiences of colonial peoples of that period. Independence movements, rebellions, caste and class consciousness, and so on, mark that period shortly after the end of the Second World War. The landing of the “Windrush” and disembarkation of those 492 men did not happen in isolation from other events and movements. This needs to be located within its historical, social, cultural and international context. We should be explicitly linking the staffing of the public sector after the havoc wrought by the war not only to the settlers who came on that ship and others like it from the Caribbean but also to those who set sail from west Africa, from east Africa and from the Indian subcontinent. How do these stories interconnect with more recent mass migrations, such as the movement of Europeans into the UK et cetera?
Another important question is how we might think more broadly about Caribbean peoples’ histories. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, wherever he might be, but the history of the black diaspora in this country did not start in 1948. It goes back centuries. So many historians and cultural commentators have worked very hard to dispel that myth that we would be failing in our responsibility if we did not take the opportunity to emphasise this point whenever we can. Finally, Parliament can make a contribution in terms of looking at itself and the contradictory nature of legislation which on the one hand proposes equality and anti-discrimination but on the other introduces harsh policies around immigration and detention.
In summary, I have tried to indicate that thought needs to be given as to how this memorialisation is made to work for us and to be presented to the public at large. I hope we can adopt a more sophisticated and nuanced approach that is not afraid to engage with ambiguity and dissonance.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, tabled this debate, and in particular that she has framed it in the context of a celebration. Having said that, we also need to face the fact that there are a number of quite shameful things in our history that we need to confront.
All dioceses in the Church of England are linked with other parts of the Anglican communion, and I am particularly interested in today’s debate as my own diocese of St Albans is linked with the dioceses of the Windward Islands and of the North East Caribbean and Aruba, which I have visited. Many people in our diocese have strong links with the West Indies—we regularly have exchanges and get to know people and communities. In Luton, which is in my diocese, we have thriving communities of people from the island of St Vincent, in St Peter’s and in Holy Cross, Marsh Farm. Discussions are under way at the moment about how this event will be celebrated in Luton.
The events surrounding the arrival of migrants—at whatever point but particularly in the 1940s and 1950s—are complex, and I see something of this in my own family. An uncle and aunt, deeply committed lifelong Methodists, made it their life’s work over many decades to use their property in London to welcome lodgers, particularly those coming into the country. They took great pride in introducing them to people and embedding them into their Methodist church. It was an extraordinary piece of work, which the family celebrates.
I also have to say, though, that in my own family racist comments were made behind their backs. Questions were raised about why they were doing it—was it just to make money? Growing up in my own family, I could see precisely the tensions that are being recognised and acknowledged in this debate.
It is good that the anniversary of the arrival of the “Windrush” will be marked this year by a service in Westminster Abbey. That is a good thing to do, but the danger is that it remains as this sort of symbolic act. It seems to me that the most important way we can celebrate this anniversary is to commit ourselves now to a greater degree of racial equality and social cohesion. In my own diocese, we are continuing to roll out a programme of training in recognising and confronting racial bias. It is something we need to attend to all the time among ourselves.
I note the proposals that have been around for some while for an official Windrush Day to celebrate this significant contribution that migrant communities have made to British life. A national day to foster positive and constructive discourse around the issue of migration—which has become so incredibly toxic in recent years—would be a great way of honouring the memory of those who came over here in 1948, and perhaps before and after, and the huge contribution they have made to every aspect of our life as a nation. I also note the suggestion to have some sort of permanent memorial here in the UK, possibly in London. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will give consideration to how we can enable groups of people to get together to think about both the permanent ways of marking this anniversary and also how to then use them to address the fundamental issues in society of how we engage with and celebrate the contribution that these communities—and indeed other communities—make as they have come to enrich our life here in the United Kingdom.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for having given us the opportunity to have this debate and for the very enlightened, warm and objective way in which she introduced it. We are very fortunate to have somebody like her in our midst.
I was a youngster, in my teens, when the “Windrush” arrived, but I can remember the excitement and concentration. It is very important that we have been reminded that the reaction was mixed. I was shocked that there were people then saying, “No Blacks welcome here” in lodgings and elsewhere.
The noble Baroness was absolutely right to raise the point about the role of the Church. I am a sort of humanist Anglican, and I say with faith in my own church that I cannot imagine that we can go on into the 22nd century with just that Church represented by right as a denomination in Britain. It just does not represent the reality of Britain. We can understand the historical argument for this, and how important the Church has been in the whole evolution of the House of Lords, and all the rest, but if we are going to reflect Britain as it is today, we have to look, for example, at the flourishing black churches in some of our communities, with a very challenging interpretation of Christianity and how it can be enjoyed.
Above all, I want, as an Anglo-Saxon Scot, to say thank you, because I know from the social experience of the years that have passed since the “Windrush” that the health service would not have survived without the Caribbean community. Public transport, particularly but not only in London, would not have survived. We must remember that we encouraged these people to come—the noble Baroness referred to that.
I am also very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, made the point about a rather limited perception that does not see the very interesting contribution made by black minorities and others way back into our history. Now we see this coming to fruition as we see the contribution to the arts, not only of the fantastic choirs associated with the churches but the Royal Shakespeare Company and opera. The contribution is there in academia. Of course, the noble Baroness is a very good illustration of that.
I end with the following observation. I am very glad the Bishop talked about the importance of celebration because I think that is right. We live in a world which is diverse. That is part of creation—its diversity. We really have to learn to enjoy and celebrate diversity and see it as an enriching feature of living, rather than something to be managed because of all the problems associated with it. We have to let ourselves go and celebrate it. I hope, therefore, that whatever is done to celebrate the arrival of “Windrush”, we will be letting ourselves go and celebrating as we should. Unless we in Britain fully, as a whole society, endorse and understand our interdependence with humanity as a whole, our future is pretty grim. I am glad that this debate was introduced.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on securing the debate and on her very eloquent speech. What a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the remarks about the future with which he concluded.
It is a simple story and a very powerful one. People were asked to come to our aid. They came, they helped and many—indeed, most, probably—were treated poorly. We have moved on from those days, as so many noble Lords have already mentioned, but not yet far enough. There is more to do, and I will illustrate that in a moment.
Speaking as a former chief executive of the NHS and former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, I know as well as anybody in recent years the great contribution that the “Windrush” generation—and, since then, people from black and minority ethnic communities more generally—have made to the NHS. When I was chief executive, the make-up of the NHS was more than 17% from black and minority ethnic communities. It had an overrepresentation of people from black and minority ethnic communities. I also know that there still was not the sort of equality of opportunity that one would like to see. The expression that became current in those days was the “snowy white peaks” of the NHS, and I guess I was sitting on one, because when you looked at the NHS, people from black and minority ethnic communities were congregated largely in the more hands-on—direct patient care—but lower levels of the hierarchy.
I congratulate NHS England on what it has been doing recently to try to make changes and secure greater equality of opportunity, particularly the recent workforce race equality standard, which has been applied across the whole NHS and which is revealing and bringing out details about how different groups are treated within the NHS. So there is more to do, although we have come an awfully long way. Perhaps, as a former chief executive of the NHS, I can also say thank you to the many people who have made such an extraordinary contribution to the NHS over the years.
I will conclude with two suggestions—two questions, really—for the Minister, which I ask him to pass on to the Department of Health. The first is that this year is also the 70th anniversary of the NHS and I believe there are already plans to celebrate that anniversary and to include the contribution of the “Windrush” generation. That needs to be celebrated to highlight the past, but we also need to highlight the present and the future. Something I would suggest as part of that is asking a young group of nurses from black and minority ethnic communities to write out their vision for the health service for the future, based on the principles and ideals that so many people have been talking about today, so that not only are we celebrating a generation from the past but thinking about and celebrating the ideas of a current generation about the future—it would be nice if any of them were descendants of the people who came on the “Windrush”.
Let me also mention one other proposal. I am talking very heavily about nurses, because I am delighted to say that I and my noble friend Lady Watkins of Tavistock are engaged in a campaign to promote and strengthen the role of nurses globally. I understand there is a proposal to have a statue erected in London to nurses who have come from other countries to support the NHS—not just the “Windrush” generation, but nurses who have come from Africa, India and elsewhere around the world. I think this would be a great symbolic gesture and a recognition from the NHS, which is a global employer and has drawn so heavily on people around the world. It would be a celebration of what they are doing and a promise that, in the future, we can do better.
Lord Ouseley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for introducing this debate, which gives us the opportunity to reflect on what might be a Windrush Day. Her introduction invites us to look broadly at how we might commemorate and celebrate what “Windrush” should mean to us. In my view, it really is not simply about the arrival at Tilbury Docks in Essex on 22 June 1948 of more than 500 British subjects from the West Indies. It is more about the black presence in Britain. Interestingly, there were also 66 Polish migrants on that ship when it docked.
The history of the black presence in Britain is about people from the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and what was then called the new Commonwealth. Can we still call it that, or should we call it the Commonwealth, embracing people from the old and the new Commonwealth? That history is littered with many colourful characters and insightful experiences. Septimius Severus was an African Roman Emperor in command of a garrison at Hadrian's Wall. The Blackamoors in Tudor England at the end of the 16th century were largely self-sufficient, established African communities. They attracted the attention of the then monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, who proclaimed that there were too many Blackamoors on the streets of London and they should be removed from these shores.
A Windrush Day on 22 June would be about promoting knowledge about the historic facts of migration and new settlements in Britain. It would celebrate how newcomers to Britain have contributed positively to the cultural, economic and social development of the country.
Some 250 years ago, a young man then known as Gustavus Vassa decided to make Britain his home. He had just bought his freedom from the owner of a sugar plantation. Gustavus Vassa was his slave name, given to him by a Royal Navy captain, Michael Henry Pascal. With Captain Pascal, Vassa served in the Seven Years’ War against France from 1756 to1763. He served on the same ship that took General James Wolfe and his men into battle against French troops in Quebec in 1759. Later, under his African name, Olaudah Equiano, he wrote a book which was published in several different languages in other European countries.
Vassa was a contemporary of Ignatius Sancho, an African who lived as a boy in Greenwich from the 1730s and grew up to become butler of the Duke and Duchess of Montagu. Sancho later became a shopkeeper, composed music, appeared on the stage, and entertained many famous figures of literary and artistic London. He was said to have been the first African to have voted in a British election, during the 1770s. He also wrote a large number of letters which were collected and published in 1782, two years after his death. Thomas Gainsborough’s portrait of Sancho was painted in 1768 while the Montagu family were in Bath. Those are only a few of the many example of stories of African people who lived in Britain many years ago and who made a contribution to this country.
There is a story to be told about the fight for air raid shelters in Brixton were fought to be opened up because there was no other accommodation provided for those who arrived here.
In drawing to a conclusion, I would like to mention three names among the many thousands that I could refer to. They are people who are known to me and who made an essential contribution to how we took forward the struggle for equality and justice, challenging prejudice and bigotry, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned, furthering the opportunity to bring forward legislation to enable equality for everyone. Those three are Sam King, who was a giant in Southwark, which I am sure will be referred to, Rene Webb and George Greaves. They are all ex-servicemen who arrived at the same time. They served during the war, were sent back and were asked to return to Britain. The real contribution that they made in promoting equality, justice and community cohesion was recognised through the award of public honours.
Finally, a Windrush Day would highlight how that generation helped Britain to face up to the end of the empire, to challenge racial prejudice, injustices and discrimination, and to campaign for equality legislation to make Britain fairer and enable access to opportunities on an equitable basis. That struggle for equality, inclusion and cohesion remains a feature of everyday life for many people in Britain today and every day.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this important debate and on her passion for making a difference. I declare an interest as a patron of the Windrush Foundation. My vision as we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the MV “Empire Windrush” arriving in Britain is for the Government to commemorate it by announcing an official annual Windrush Day. It would give the country the opportunity to celebrate all aspects of our migrant population and to appreciate their contribution through education, politics, sport, art, music, culture, fashion, cuisine, business, medicine and so on.
The “Windrush” arrival is not always highlighted during Black History Month, so a Windrush Day would be a day to remember not only “Windrush” passengers but other migrants who have made and continue to make significant contributions to the prosperity of Britain. Schools could annually feature and highlight them, and it would be a means of fostering greater social understanding and cohesion. It could be a way for young people, especially those from minority ethnic backgrounds, to develop a better sense of identity as the histories and contributions of their ancestors are appreciated and celebrated.
I am part of the “Windrush” generation. I came to Britain from Trinidad as a 10 year-old and I had to break down many barriers. I had to face unbelievable adversity which no child should have to endure, being told by a church in Penge that my kind was not wanted there. This happened to many Caribbean people who simply wanted to worship joyfully in church as they had done in the Caribbean. That is why so many black-led churches sprung up in cities across the country. So it is wonderful to hear that the nation’s church leaders will be celebrating and commemorating the 70th “Windrush” anniversary positively. I am a positive thinker and believe that we should all pave the way for future generations. Our children need to feel as though they belong in order to face the future confidently. So we all need to play our part in the “Windrush” celebrations as a legacy. We are part of it.
My contribution to the 70th anniversary is to create an RHS Chelsea Flower Show “Windrush” garden with the help of Birmingham City Council. The garden will also be displayed around the country so that as many people as possible will be able to experience the vibrant horticultural display telling the story of those pioneers from the Caribbean who travelled to Britain to start a new life and helped to rebuild Britain after the war by working in the NHS, the transport system, factories and many other services. An element of the display will be a collage of images of the “Windrush” story as seen through the eyes of schoolchildren. It is great that the “Windrush” will now be part of the national curriculum for 16 year-olds who will be able to take their history exams in the subject at GCSE level, but a Windrush Day would add value to education for children of all ages.
Parliament officially recognised 23 August as UNESCO’s International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition, so why not 22 June as Windrush Day? I hope that the Government will consider this and celebrate the 70th anniversary by officially announcing a Windrush Day. We owe it to the descendants of the “Windrush” generation, so that they feel they are part of the history of our great country. I look forward to working with the Government to make the “Windrush” celebration memorable and significant.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on securing this debate this afternoon. In the short time I have, I will not be able to cover all the points noble Lords have made in the debate. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, setting out for us what the Government plan to do to celebrate the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” 70 years ago at Tilbury Docks.
It is such a momentous occasion and a milestone on the way of creating the country we live in today. People coming here from the Caribbean to make a life for themselves and make a contribution to this country should be celebrated. As many noble Lords have said, they were not always welcomed with open arms by the communities they came to live in, but their children and grandchildren have gone on to make a contribution and continue to do so today, in all walks of life.
I had the privilege of knowing one of the men that walked off the ship at Tilbury on 22 June. As the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, said, his name was Sam King, a man born at Priestman’s River in Portland, Jamaica—I am very pleased he has already been mentioned. He responded to an advert in the Gleaner from the Government looking for young men to come and help them to fight the Nazis. He joined the Royal Air Force and after training was posted to RAF Hawkinge, where he worked as an engineer.
After the war, he went back to Jamaica but could not settle. Then he saw another advert in the Gleaner for tickets to come on the “Empire Windrush”. He got his ticket, got off the boat at Tilbury and rejoined the RAF. After leaving the RAF some years later, he joined the Post Office and became a postman for 34 years. He was a major figure in the West Indian community, particularly in London. Along with others, he helped to set up the Notting Hill carnival. He was a lover of sport, particularly cricket. I first got to know Sam in the days when they had that great West Indian cricket team which beat us in the West Indies and then came and beat us here in England as well.
As we have heard, Sam helped set up the Windrush Foundation to preserve the memories of those who had travelled here to the United Kingdom on that ship. While a postman, he joined the Labour Party, and was an active member of the Dulwich Constituency Labour Party for many years. He worked with the then local MP, Sam Silkin, who then became Lord Silkin of Dulwich. Later he worked with Tessa Jowell as the local MP, now my noble friend Lady Jowell.
Sam became a Labour councillor, and then the first black person ever to become Mayor of Southwark. Local government in the 1980s, especially in London, was a fairly rough affair. No quarter was given, and Sam had to handle some fairly stormy meetings at Southwark Town Hall. He did so with great wit, charm, skill and dignity. He also carried out his other roles as first citizen of the borough and was much loved by all who got to know him. He was then awarded an MBE in 1998. On 31 January 2010, a blue plaque was placed outside the house he lived in from 1958 to 1984 on Warmington Road.
For me, Sam is an example of a life well lived and a shining example of the contribution immigrants make to our country—particularly, as in his case, from the Caribbean. He was loved by his family and friends; he was law abiding; he served this country in the Armed Forces; he arrived back here and worked in the public sector; he was a community activist and made a major contribution, as we have heard, to the community here; and he was an elected politician. He is only one man, but he is an example of the difference that people who have come to live and work here have made to this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the NHS, and this is one area we have never sorted out. People come and work in the public sector and then retire. Many people may want to retire back to the Caribbean. If they do, their pension is frozen. That is something we should look at. It is very unfair. My mum and dad are Irish. My mum was a nurse as well, and they retired to Ireland. My mum and dad get their pension increase every year with no problem at all, but if you go back to the Caribbean, you do not. That is unfair. You have paid for that pension. I know it would cost a lot of money, but the Government should look at it because it is unfair. We should look at the contribution that they have made to this country: what you paid for, you should be entitled to get. But what a great debate we have had.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate and thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for bringing this very important topic to our attention today. It has been a debate of extreme potency and impact on many different fronts and I will try to do justice to the contributions that have been made. At the end of my period, I will specifically deal with some of the plans we have. In so far as I have not covered all the detail of the plans, I will cover them in a letter which I will send to all Members of the Committee.
In response to a point made early on by my noble friend Lady Berridge about the input of other noble Lords, we would be happy to hear from all noble Lords about ideas. We have had some good potent, ideas today. I have written separately to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, because she will clearly have ideas and I would like to be able to reflect on them so that we are able to move forward together on some of the important areas that we have touched on today.
Many noble Lords referred to the early degree of prejudice that undoubtedly existed and the awful experiences that many of the first members of the “Windrush” generation, not just those on the “Windrush”, must have experienced when coming to this country, finding not just a cold climate but a very cold reception. That was truly awful. Many noble Lords referred to that and to the journey we have made, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, but other noble Lords said that we still face challenges, including the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Crisp, who had some specific questions that I will try to cover, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who made a very powerful contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who asked some specific questions. I shall try to deal with some of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made a potent point. It strikes me as strange, as it has done for some time, that we see people challenged and asked to go back to a country where they may never have been or, if they have, it was a long time ago, and it is not home. Let me make it clear that the Government are absolutely determined that people who are rightly here should remain here.
I will ensure that a copy of the report of this debate is shared with other government departments, because it has clearly impacted on a number of areas, including DCMS on statues, which I will come on to, and the Home Office in relation to the correct contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked about recognition of the role of the “Windrush” generation and members of ethnic minority communities in general in relation to the NHS. He is absolutely right. We all remember the powerful impact of the opening ceremony of the Olympics in 2012, which combined references to the “Windrush”, the NHS and the fact that we are a proud multicultural, multiracial society. That is reflected in everyday life, not just in the public sector, but certainly in the public sector and probably most obviously in our great NHS. That is an important point. I know that is the view of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, but I will ensure that he sees a copy of the report of this important debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made a valid point about statues. As a nation, a country and a kingdom, we have become much more aware of the importance of statues. You can scarcely open a newspaper these days without seeing a legitimate case being made for a statue of an individual or a cause. I will ensure that a copy of the report of this debate goes to DCMS with a covering note.
We should not think just in terms of London, although London is important. In that context, before I come to some of the activities that the Government are engaged in, we are working with Tilbury—I think Tilbury lies in the London Borough of Thurrock—and Lambeth because on 22 June, Windrush Day, there will be a celebration of the 70th anniversary. I am very grateful for the dynamic representation of the community provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has been a joy to work with as we have looked at these projects. I congratulate her on the success of the garden project, which I know she has been instrumental in driving forward. It is very hard to say no to her on anything, but on something as great as a garden, I can quite see why she has had that success. I hope to be able to visit it when it comes to London. I am sure we all do. It is a great thing.
In the context of saying that we are working with the Windrush Foundation, the Voice will bring out a special celebration edition to mark the 70th anniversary. We also have plans to mark it not just in Westminster Abbey but to make it known to other cathedrals and religious bodies around the country that it is Windrush Day. We need to make sure that it is recognised and get a positive message out there about the importance of the day. They might like to have a service of celebration in their community and to organise a tea party, as will be happening in Lambeth. There is also the possibility of live-streaming between different celebrations.
Celebration will not be on Windrush Day only. Things are starting in Lambeth in February. They are happening in Leeds, where the Phoenix Dance Theatre is putting on a Windrush production, which will be coming to London on, I think, 26 to 28 April, so I give advance notice to noble Lords. It will be at Sadler’s Wells, I think. I hope to be able to go to it. A range of activities is going on, and we hope to enlarge on what is already happening while keeping it focused. I am very happy and privileged to work with noble Lords to make sure that we can enhance what is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the great Sam King. He was indeed a great man. Many great men and women who came over on that boat, subsequent and previous boats deserve to be honoured, but there is clearly iconic significance to the “Windrush” which we want to celebrate as a country to demonstrate not just how far we have come, which we have, but to recognise that there are still challenges, some of which I hope that we can face through the Race Disparity Audit. It published data, and you cannot really disagree with data. You can disagree about what we do about the data, and that debate is now going on in government because the Prime Minister has been driving it hard and has been asking departments to bring forward plans to ensure that we take forward the published data and act to ensure that some of the lessons are learned and some of the wrongs are righted. That is something I know that we want to do.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, because I am sure that I have missed some points. I will try to pick them up in the letter that I will send round. I encourage all noble Lords to pass on the message about the importance of Windrush Day and, more broadly, about the lesson of the Windrush generation and its importance for our country. We are all here in a mood of celebration about Windrush, but we must also recognise that we cannot be complacent. There are still lessons to be learned, although the examples of others from earlier generations demonstrate that there were people at the time who obviously were receptive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, pointed out. It was not all bleak, even in those early days, although it was clearly very bleak for many people. There was the example of people early on, such as Roy Jenkins, although that was perhaps a bit later, and Ian Macleod, as well as people in the community and religious communities up and down the country who were helping.
I once again thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for introducing this debate in such a timely way, I thank noble Lords who participated and look forward to working with them to ensure that we have a very successful year and a very successful Windrush Day and get it into the national calendar. That is very important.
UK Sport: Elite Sport Funding
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to reviewing the guidance given to UK Sport about which sports are to receive funding for elite programmes, to take into account the potential growth of grassroots participation.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank all those who have decided at the end of this busy week to give me an hour of their time to discuss these matters. This debate was inspired in my mind by the fact that we are at a point of celebration and worry in sport, in equal measure. We have transformed our sporting environment from the top. Of the statistics that I have acquired from various sources, as one does at the start of a debate, the one that stuck out for me was that our improvement from 1996, the Atlanta Games, to the Rio Games was a 347% increase in medals. But that figure probably tells you where one of the problems comes from—the Olympic Games. At elite level, one of the problems has been that, if you are in that select club, getting this wonderful funding that is provided by the lottery, or at least inspired by it, and giving central government the incentive to get in on this wonderful success story and guarantee it, which it has done, you are actually excluding other sports, or making the barrier to get in there that little bit higher. Team sports seem to struggle slightly, and are more vulnerable.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, beforehand whether he could give an example of exactly what the criteria for success is, because it is perceived as being medals at the Olympics. I know it is broader and more complicated than that, and I have probably made that mistake in conversation and in communication with people—but if we can actually see what the criteria for funding elite sport is, that would help this debate and, I hope, get it beyond here and out. If we can make sure that we are encouraging sport to expand its base, we may well get to the bit that has not been so successful. The participation rate at a moderate level of about 30 minutes a week has improved over the same period by 6%. Clearly, a 6% improvement for the entire population may be a massive increase, but the perception is, in our current environment, that funding is concentrated on a few sports that are encouraged to win all the medals. With certain sports—for instance, when you have lots of medals available—of course, we have the potential of getting much more bang for our buck.
A sport such as artistic gymnastics has lots of different events and lots of opportunities to acquire champions and people who succeed at that level, compared to one of the team sports. Hockey has done reasonably well, but one centre forward down and a goalkeeper having a bad day and that medal goes. That is the fact of the matter in all team sports. If you have lots of different options, to a degree you have a buffer zone, and if you have a good structure in place, you do not have to worry about that off day to the same extent, because you will have other bites at the cherry. How are we going to structure this in future? The question of how we bring other sports up that will penetrate into other bits of society is very important. If we cannot address that, we are not following on from that initial success. We are not saying, “We will do more”.
There is a cohesive social value in amateur sport, when people join together to do something that they get a buzz out of or enjoy, or whatever the correct term is in psychology. It is about the mates who give up their time on a regular basis to get involved in sport. Indeed, there are direct health benefits of casual sport. At Question Time today, we were discussing how exercise helps you in old age. If you have a sporting habit, exercise is a lot easier to do. Your muscles might have decayed, but if you have some muscle memory then, to put it bluntly, you stand a chance of getting them back without killing yourself. As all the old sportsmen in the Room will know, and I see there are a few, you find yourself going back.
The relationship between the elite and grass-roots sports is changing, in a good way. As I get older—and I still occasionally put myself through “golden oldies” rugby—I am beginning to wonder when rugby is going to get a walking version of its game. It has been said of me that I am going that way quite rapidly anyway; indeed, some people have said I was never far off it in the first place. In the context of the development of grass-roots sports, how do you make that relationship between the two, and how can it be perceived as more equal? What thinking is going on about that?
There is an elephant in the room that is going to plant its feet on our toes very rapidly: the lottery does not seem to be delivering funds with anything like the efficiency that it did. I do not know whether that is a management problem or the result of competition or if it is just the case that the world has slightly moved on. I have had exchanges with the Minister before about this, but if we are going to rely on the lottery, we must look at what we can do to ensure that it can at least guarantee the level of funding that we have at the moment. A decline in funding from the lottery, particularly for grass-roots sports, is unwelcome. It is one thing to get a Minister to say, “Yes, we’ll guarantee your Olympic programme or your elite-level programme”, but it is rather more difficult politically to argue for the upgrading of sports pitches, village halls and so on, particularly as there will always be someone making an excellent case for other uses of that money. How are we going to address that? I would be interested to hear the discussion that is going on, because we are coming to the end of this cycle of funding. For the next Olympic Games, it is all to play for. We must start to address this thoroughly.
We have to go beyond the idea that everything will be fine because, if lots of people watch it on television, they will go out, join in and take it up themselves. Although that may work a little, it patently does not work well enough. We have to do something else. If we want to cheer people on TV, we have to make sure that our recruitment base is wide, or we can contract in on ourselves and concentrate on a few sports. For instance, if we want to have an internationally recognisable basketball team—I have a little knowledge of some of the people in the Room—with a cultural base and activity, what level of investment by the state would be required to do that? That would drag in other aspects as well, and other sports would have other angles.
What do we need to maintain sports? Are we prepared to get slightly more involved in planning ahead and developing how these things go? I do not say that this is easy; we found out from the London Olympics that you cannot create a team overnight and expect it to be maintained. Handball is a wonderful game to watch; if I were a few years younger, I think I would have enjoyed playing it. But it would appear that we have no cultural base for it, and will not have one unless we do a lot more work.
We have an expansion here; we have a series of turns we can take. What are we doing to link the two aspects? If we are to build on success, it appears that we have to look to what is culturally embedded and enhance it. In boxing, for instance, we produce literally dozens of world-class amateur boxers now, and that is socially acceptable—it goes on to have good social results. If we can build upon that, we will do something good for society. If we do not, we will lose every social benefit that goes with it. All I am looking for today is to get some response from the Government and to hear from others about how we take this on. We have a good story; we are at the point where we can make it a great one or go backwards. I look forward to hearing what others say in this debate.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare two interests, one as president of British Water Ski and Wakeboard and the other as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 to 2012, covering the Beijing and London Olympic cycles—when, after much negotiation with government, we secured funding for eight years and beyond. A very important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who I congratulate on securing this debate: a four-year cycle for a sport will never deliver what you wish. The reality is that you need to plan for a good 20 years. We need to make sure that secure funding is in place for sports over that sort of period rather than the quadrennial cycle.
I would like to make a very few comments. First, in essence, I hope that UK Sport will consider turning the existing pyramid upside down and allowing those sports which have no programme funding to have something that athletes can aspire to by allocating some funds to every Olympic and Paralympic sport and thus rewarding success. It is neither logical nor right that badminton, which medalled in Rio, or wheelchair rugby, which missed out on a medal by one goal in the final match, should have all their funding withdrawn after analysis by a so-called intelligence unit of UK Sport. They simply analyse using their computers and do not understand that to secure success, a wider participation base is essential and funding needs to be put in place. I repeat that it is not just for that four-year cycle, depending on the outcome of a final, but over a much longer period.
Secondly, I hope that UK Sport can look closely at the amount of money going into the English Institute of Sport. It seems in some ways to be unconnected with what is needed by each sport. Those in receipt of funding pay for the services of the EIS, which could in my view be made to work far better at a more reasonable cost. I hope that a review of the EIS can be high on Dame Kath Grainger’s priorities.
Thirdly, the short-termism culture of the current funding model, which I have mentioned, fails to recognise the potential of the unfunded sports. More and more is going into the successful sports which carry our medal haul. I recognise the extraordinary contribution they have made and the remarkable success they continue to have worldwide. I value that but we have now moved to the position whereby five sports had more than 50% of the total four-year funding for Rio. That is funded by the organisation UK Sport which is mandated to promote sport the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I believe that there should be one pyramid which should connect and encourage participation at the base and provide services and the support structure needed right the way through to medal success at the top.
I hope that more and more sports men and women move away from the feeling that many sports had post Rio: that they had nothing to aim for because their national programmes were no longer funded and were demoralised as a result. UK Sport will of course argue that national governing bodies should do more, but for many this creates an almost impossible situation for the governing bodies. For those who seek to achieve their potential, there can be no future when there is no resource to assist them. Team sports have been particularly badly hit, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned. Young men and women from ethnic communities and disadvantaged groups tend to be attracted to team sports where they find friendships and all the characteristics of well-being and togetherness. But local authority sports facilities being very expensive to hire is impacting on the ability of local groups to meet and train.
UK Sport has cut the funding for international representation. I want to put on the record that I feel this is a very important point. We need to make sure that we have good international representation in all international bodies and that our top administrators attend congresses. However, that is impossible if a sport is not in receipt of UK Sport performance funding. This comes despite more than a decade of welcoming such an involvement and encouraging sports to do so. It may not be possible for many sports to attend the international congresses of their sports, particularly those that have had a complete cut in funding. For example, squash has been working hard—admirably so—to be recognised as an Olympic sport. Having a seat at the top table of international squash helps us enormously in making the case that squash, which is a very popular sport in this country, should be an Olympic sport. A presence at the top table of sport is vital not just for those who benefit most by their medal tally, but for those five sports as well as the other sports and Paralympic sports that are funded. We should be looking at supporting international representation across the board.
I totally accept that sponsorship and private sector support is critical; it should be sought. This is an area where UK Sport can help. It can sit down and work with governing bodies—all governing bodies, not just the Olympic and Paralympic ones—to achieve more funding through sponsorship. When I was chairman of the British Olympic Association, we had the FTSE 100 initiative where we linked companies directly to individual sports, many of which still benefit from the sponsorship they received at that time. It was a huge pity that when it came to the Olympic Games in London in 2012, when we raised over £1 billion in LOCOG, there was not a single meeting between all our governing bodies in sports and LOCOG to introduce them to the sponsors that were new to sport. We lost that opportunity.
In conclusion, as president of British Water Ski, I want to make one very interesting point. British Water Ski and Wakeboard came off the agenda in 2012 when UK Sport stopped funding non-Olympic sports. It was told that it should rely on talent programme funding from Sport England, which is doing a very good job now in developing participation, but the talent funding programme is about to go. That is a classic example of the base of the pyramid, and the top of the pyramid for a few sports, being very strong, but there is no consistent ladder to climb, which is the only way to secure long-term success in the medal tables. I hope that UK Sport can engage more with non-Olympic sports and urge the Commonwealth Games Federation to bring water skiing onto the agenda for when it returns to the UK. With the support of the Commonwealth Games Foundation, I am sure that that will be the case.
In conclusion, more needs to be done to deliver a one-stop shop, introducing all the difficult and relevant skills necessary to link participation with excellence in a single, unique and coherent strategy.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the debate and I draw your attention to my interests on the register. I am the chair of ukactive, vice-president of the LGA and I fit the noble Lord, Lord Addington’s, definition of an “old athlete”—many years ago, I was a lottery-funded athlete. In April last year, I published a report on duty of care in sport, which the Sports Minister, the right honourable Tracey Crouch MP, asked me to undertake.
Lottery funding was set up to transform the medal winning opportunities and it has done so. I want to point out that in Atlanta, although the Olympic team won one gold, the Paralympic team won 39 and were third on the medal table—but the funding is extremely welcome all the same. There is huge public support and a real feel-good factor when teams win. Medals matter—they always have—but we must understand that there is a cost to winning medals that is not just financial. The 2012 Games were an incredible experience and we were absolutely right to do it. The Games provide a moment of inspiration: there are athletes who are competing now because of London. I competed because of the 1984 Olympics.
Elite sport is the showcase, but it is a small part of the structure. Many sports are able to show the impact that winning medals has on participation. I have long thought that major sporting events—I need to be clear on this—on their own do not change the world or participation. It is not fair to expect the 10 days of the Paralympics to change the lives of all disabled people. It changed the lives of many Paralympians, but the reality is that for many disabled people, it changed little. It did not make buses more accessible, nor stop disability hate crime.
While it is not impossible to make a GB team or qualify for a major games, if the sport is not funded at the elite level it is likely to be very much harder. Young athletes need to be able to see the top of the pyramid and believe that they have an opportunity to get there. I understand that funding is not limitless and that there are challenges over lottery receipts; all sports want more money. But I would like to ask this: how do we inspire a nation if the opportunities to compete at the highest level are limited because there is no funding? There is a symbiotic relationship between elite, grass roots and wider participation. We also cannot forget the impact that volunteering has on sport.
I would like to look at one sport in particular, which I hope will provide a useful example: badminton, for which we won a medal in Rio. However, it is not in the funding cycle through to Tokyo for the elite side of the sport. Badminton has the largest schools championship in Europe, involving some 42,000 young people between the ages of 11 to 16. If badminton is played in your primary school, you are four times more likely to play it at secondary school. That has been made possible because of lottery investment and it could not be done without it. Approximately 50% of the people who participate in badminton would not be classed as “sporty”. For around £5 million of local money, the lottery has provided £70 million of investment into local facilities and that has been a key part of the growth in participation. The lottery investment into the world-class programme delivered not only the medal in Rio, it delivered a 245% growth in participation in London alone. Some 66% of the legacy growth across the country was among those aged under 16. Badminton believes that the lottery funding works and needs to be protected. I agree with that, although I probably have a different view on how the total sum of money should be spent.
I should like to ask the Minister about the status of the response to the Every Sport Matters agenda, which the non-Olympic and Paralympic sports have presented to UK Sport. I understand that the landscape is not simple. We have UK Sport, Sport England, the home nations sports councils and devolution. It is not a simple system to work through. I think that we need to start looking at this in a different way and consider how truly active we are as a nation. I am delighted that Sport England is looking at new ways of managing participation and funding projects differently. That is fantastic, but if we have less active people, we have fewer people coming into sport. We are a nation of sports lovers and we are a nation of people who like watching sport, but perhaps participation is a little further down the agenda. My own journey into elite sport was not about a pathway. I was paralysed at the age of seven. The world was not very accessible back then and my father believed that I ought to be fit and healthy in order to be able to live in an inaccessible world.
Part of the challenge is how we talk about sport. What do we mean by that? Do we mean competitive sport, physical literacy or physical activity? Sport is a subset of being active, and that is why we need to change some of the narrative. It should not always be sport for sport’s sake, we need to look at physical activity as a preventative front line of the NHS. We need to be thinking about the health of the nation and how we could fund projects in a different way. The reality, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has said, is that a four-year funding cycle for elite sport does not fit into a five-year election cycle, let alone anything else. We in the UK do incredibly well in sport at the highest level, but the inactivity crisis should be of huge concern to us all. If we look back at the medal success of the Olympic team in Beijing, we see that 37% of our Olympic medallists came from the independent sector. I cheered every single one of them on, but that is not how sport should be in the future.
As the chair of ukactive, I said at our national summit last year that activity is the golden thread that runs through every part of our lives. Today’s young people are the least active ever and we need a serious shake-up of the school day to save “generation inactive” from a lifetime of ill health. The fittest children today would have been considered some of the least fit and active 30 years ago. We need to bring activity back into children’s daily lives. PE takes up just two hours of the 168 hours in a child’s week, and that is only during term time. Research by ukactive has shown how the school summer holidays can drive a sharp wedge between the activity levels of the affluent and deprived children. We need to work with partners to open up dozens of schools over the summer to address this inactivity.
Children are never going to turn up to a nutrition session on its own or talk about oral health, the subject of an earlier debate that I spoke in. They might not turn up to a session about mindfulness, but sport has the power to do a huge amount. Nelson Mandela said:
“Sport has the power to change the world”.
By looking at how we can engage children through freestyle dance classes, football or whatever sport it may be, we might just have the chance of showing them the merits of a balanced and healthy lifestyle. We will then have a much greater chance of bringing these children into sport. Sport is absolutely wonderful and it has given me so many things in my life, but it is time to think a bit more widely than just sport.
Lord Wasserman (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this debate. I also thank him for his interest in the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Basketball, of which I am joint chairman. I should also declare my interest as chairman of the Basketball Foundation, a registered charity established by the clubs which comprise the professional British Basketball League—the BBL—with a view to encouraging and supporting the community outreach activities of these clubs and of other basketball clubs around the country.
This is not the first time that I have argued the case in your Lordships’ House for more public funding for basketball. I make no apology for doing so again today. I am sure that noble Lords with strong interests in other sports, such as badminton—particularly those supported by UK Sport—will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to argue that UK Sport should make basketball a special case and support it at the expense of some other sport which it presently funds.
I would, of course, love to see our national basketball teams compete in the Olympics, and would enthusiastically applaud a decision by UK Sport to enable the British Basketball Federation to make it happen. However, I would not want it to happen at the cost of our country slipping down the medals table. I love to see us at the top of the table, and I do not mind which sports have won the medals. Nor, frankly, do I take much notice of the educational background, or even the ethnicity, of our athletes when I proudly watch them standing on the podium singing our national anthem. For me, sport is one of the few areas of life where innate ability, combined with dedication and sheer hard work—and perhaps luck—make all the difference. It is one of the few areas where what counts is who you are, not who you know. That is why I believe that Dame Katherine Grainger is right to say that our hero athletes can unite and inspire us as a nation. At a period in our national life when we are riven by debate caused by the Brexit referendum, the Government would be well advised to support anything that unites us and, to this end, to put more money into all aspects of sport, both elite and grassroots.
I am probably revealing my naivety in comparison with some noble Lords who have spoken when I say that I am prepared to leave it to UK Sport to do its job of backing Olympic winners. I do not want to make life more difficult for UK Sport by asking it to use its limited resources to solve a number of other major national problems, such as urban deprivation and ethnic and racial discrimination. UK Sport is already helping to tackle those problems by providing inspiration for our young people through the success which our athletes achieve internationally. That said, those problems need urgent attention and sport, particularly basketball, can play a major role in tackling them.
Basketball is a sport which has a particular attraction for members of our inner-city communities, and especially our BAME communities. This is partly because its world-renowned heroes such as Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Michael Jordan and our own John Amaechi are, to a large extent, members of these communities. We see the practical effect of this in our national teams: 75% of our men’s senior team are members of our BAME community; 85% of our under-20 men’s team and 75% of our under-18 and under-16 men’s teams are members of those communities. The figures for our women’s teams are lower, but not significantly so. This, of course, reflects the fact that more than half—58%—of basketball’s adult participants are from BAME communities, even though those communities make up only 10% of the UK adult population. Even more striking is that approximately 17% of Basketball England members live in the country’s most deprived council wards, as defined by the Government’s definition of multiple deprivation. Some 18% of basketball clubs are located in these wards.
Basketball is clearly a sport that reaches parts of the country that other sports cannot reach. As such, it delivers all the well-known benefits of sport—good health, confidence, self-esteem and improved mental capacity—to those who have the least going for them in terms of family income and advantage. For me, whose professional career over the past 30 years has been concerned mainly with keeping communities safe, basketball offers the unique capability of being able to reach directly into these inner-city, disadvantaged communities to improve the life chances of those most at risk of getting into trouble with the criminal justice system. By doing this, basketball can play a major role in keeping communities safe.
But those communities, by their very nature, cannot afford the facilities or coaches necessary to mount effective basketball programmes, although most of the sport’s biggest stars honed their skills on the streets or in public parks with nothing more than a ball and a hoop. So who should fund these facilities? Private commercial and philanthropic funding for inner-city recreational basketball is very hard to come by. There are many reasons for that, including the fact that, although basketball is the second most popular sport after football for 11 to 15 year-olds, it is played mainly in state, as opposed to independent, schools, and has very little social cachet. For that reason, public funding is the only realistic, short-term way of getting basketball into our inner-city BAME communities, to enable it to work its magic in terms of enhancing the life chances of the youth of those communities and keeping them out of trouble.
As I argued earlier, I would not want to see this money taken from other parts of the sports landscape, particularly elite sport. It should be found from those government departments with statutory responsibility for keeping people out of trouble, enhancing their life chances and keeping us all safe. Just as the Foreign Office supports the foreign language service of the BBC, I propose that the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and others find the funds to support basketball from their departmental budgets as a contribution to building,
“a country that works for everyone”,
to quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. How that money is distributed to these communities is a matter for inter-departmental consideration. It could be through basketball’s governing bodies, a new agency or charity, or through police and crime commissioners— who, by the way, have responsibility for keeping our communities safe and who would jump at the chance of taking on this new task. What needs no further consideration is the urgent need for action.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Addington for focusing this debate on the proper relationship between elite sport and grass roots sport in this country.
The National Survey for Wales 2016-17 found that of the 700,000 population in north Wales where I live, 190,000 people—27%—aged 16 and above are not currently active but want to be more active. So, this very day, Chwaraeon Cymru—Sport Wales—is launching Sport North Wales, pioneering a new model. It is seeking longer-term funding from the Welsh Government who currently provide £3 million annually across the six local authorities. Sport North Wales will lead and co-ordinate sport throughout the region with a single mission and purpose; precisely how is yet to be revealed by today’s press release, but I hope that it follows along the lines outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to preserve community sports facilities. In my own home town we have lost two swimming pools and nothing has replaced them.
I have always been involved in very muddy grass roots sport in north Wales, having played rugby until age disqualified me, coached my team as a WRU qualified coach to win the North Wales Cup, and then refereed from Blaenau Ffestiniog to Rhosllanerchrugog. My noble friend Lord Addington knows of my afterlife of refereeing parliamentary rugby, which is much slower but more violent, from North Island in New Zealand to California in the United States.
I am delighted that Rygbi Gogledd Cymru 1404, the date that Owain Glyndŵr beat the English, which is based at Colwyn Bay is currently heading the Welsh Premier League, the most senior league under the four regions in Wales. In my youth, north Wales was regarded as soccer territory. Wrexham Football Club was founded in 1864 and is the third oldest professional rugby club in the world. So a protestant Caernarfonshire and Anglesey supported Everton in Liverpool, for goodness’ sake, but what happened to bring rugby players such as Robbie McBryde and George North out of Anglesey? It was the elite Welsh rugby team of the 1970s with Gareth Edwards, Barry John, Phil Bennett and Ray Williams from Wrexham. It became patriotic to play rugby, particularly in the Welsh-speaking areas. So I have lived to see how sporting success breeds grass roots participation, with clubs springing up in Bala, Harlech and Menai Bridge. I once had to delay the kick-off in Nant Conwy because Twm, the star flanker, was still shearing his sheep on the hill. These and many others were clubs that simply did not exist in the 1960s.
But I have also been lucky enough to be able to take part in the United Kingdom’s premier Olympic sport of rowing, not so much at grass roots as more semi-submerged. The great Sir Steven Redgrave and Sir Matthew Pinsent scored Britain’s only gold medal in the Atlanta Olympic Games of 1996 at Lake Lanier. I rowed on that lake with my Chester-based club, Rex, the following year.
The tally in 1996 over all sports was 15 medals and Britain ranked 36th in the world, which is something that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, would not approve of. With the leadership of Redgrave and Pinsent, with professional coaching and facilities, and with the backing of National Lottery and government funding, the sport of rowing grew and flourished. Elite success led the way. Every time we had an Olympic success, we had recruits to my Chester club. Indeed, my club captain’s son, Tom James, won three Olympic golds in three successive Olympics. Another club member’s daughter, Vicky Thornley, won a silver medal along with Katherine Grainger in the Rio Olympics. Such is the increase in the grass roots membership of the Rex Rowing Club. I can assure your Lordships that we are not called Rex for nothing because we are about to launch four new boats at the weekend after next—one, if I may say so modestly, with my name upon it. I believe it to be very positive that some noble Lords have been encouraged to row in the annual Parliamentary Boat Race and have voiced a number of issues raised by British Rowing through the APPG.
I appreciate the single-minded purpose of UK Sport to produce medals and glory for Britain at the forthcoming Tokyo Olympics. That is its mission statement and it fulfils it very well, but I am not sure that reducing the number of sports being supported and cutting off the rest without a shilling is the right way forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that there should be a base level of funding for national governing bodies in all Olympic sports otherwise the development of important areas of sport will be lost. Perhaps in 1996 tae-kwon-do would not have appeared on the list of supported sports, but Jade Jones MBE was introduced to the sport by her grandfather at the age of eight in the little village of Bodelwyddan in Denbighshire and now has two gold medals under her belt in successive Olympics.
There is today a thirst for fitness and activity among young people. Just go outside and see the peloton of cyclists swooping past this House, risking the life and limb of every noble Lord. It is absolutely clear that investment in sport will pay back in the future by reducing obesity, diminishing diabetes and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, lowering dependency on the NHS.
If lottery proceeds are falling, there is an obligation on the Government to step in and invest wisely. So where is the money coming from? Some sports do not require support. Football’s income from television is obscenely high and distorts wages and the transfer market. Gambling produces obscene profits for gaming companies without their employees even having to kick a ball or jump a fence. So it could come from, maybe not a tax, but certainly sponsorship. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, wants to get money out of the Home Office and the Foreign Office and I wish him the greatest luck in that, but it is very important that sport is supported. In the interests of a healthy society there has got to be a rebalancing of resources. Is it not time to be thinking radically?
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, there seems to be a theme coming through and I simply want to add my voice to the expression of it. Incidentally, with the previous speaker in mind, I say that one former Welsh rugby union referee is following another in this debate, and no doubt some quite heavy influence will be cast upon the outcome of the debate as a result. I have to say, however, that I can trump a few aces, because I in fact played with Barry John at the University of Wales—I want that on the record of course. I also played at Lampeter, where the first rugby game was ever played in Wales—it was brought there from Cambridge, shortly after it originated in Rugby. I played in the centenary game with a whole host of Welsh international stars playing against us. I went down for the 150th anniversary just last year, where I kicked off the ball—that was the limit.
It is interesting, as my life has unfolded, that the great sports that I have played—cricket, badminton, rugby and anything else that was going—have gradually become more sedentary, ending with snooker. I have even given that up, not so much because my sons began to beat me at it but because they began to pretend that I had beaten them—that is a much more serious position, I can assure noble Lords.
As far as I see and hear it, the real key to this discussion is that we have to decide at the beginning of our thinking—our conceptualisation—whether to look for a solution to the admitted need to encourage activity in this sector at the top, through pump-priming in order to set examples that others will follow and to inspire through great success, or at the bottom. The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, talked very eloquently about that second approach; I have heard him speak on basketball twice now.
All my sporting activity was in the pre-professional days, before pay, and there was an entirely different approach to it. Burry Port, where I come from, has had no medals in anything, but the playing fields of Burry Port, like those of Eton, were full of people striving to beat local opponents. There were revenge matches with Tumble over the hill and Pembrey down the road. My brother was in at 16 playing for Pembrey youth and I played for the University of Wales later on. It was all without any money being exchanged at all. Really, it is about the balance between putting money into activities that generate success that then inspires others and looking to develop communities with these local rivalries, competitions and the spirit of fellowship—is there anything better than taking to any field of endeavour with the idea of really knocking your opponents for six, only to enjoy a pint in the pub with them afterwards as you recount tales of derring-do in days gone by? There is nothing more sensible than that as a pattern for the way you live. Here, of course, I would draw a distinction between the crowds at football and rugby. The crowds intermingle at rugby, and you make jokes at each other’s expense and that of the opponents around you, whereas in football the police help to separate them off from each other.
I wonder about the way such resources as we have get channelled out. Why do we favour sports that are very low in terms of participatory potential, such as equestrian sport, when sports such as basketball—which, in terms of social cohesion, bring people together across all the divides that afflict us socially—are left out of the equation? I wish we could recalibrate the way we look at how we distribute such resources as are available. Whether it is everything as it was last year, less or whatever, how do we prioritise? The whole business of medals leaves me cold. I love having medals and cheering competitors on, but I cannot see that that must be the sole criterion when we look at a formula for distributing the cash that is available.
Tomorrow morning, I will receive a protégé of mine who got a job a couple of years ago with the Rugby Football Union. His job is to animate communities throughout north London and to interest schools that do not have a tradition of rugby, and communities that have no playing fields, in the possibilities of playing it, especially helping women to play. The Rugby Football Union no doubt gets some government money; I do not know and do not really care—it is the activity I want to exalt. It is about taking it out of a sporting base—where the newspapers are full of the rivalries, the need to win the Six Nations Championship and all the rest of it—and into the grass roots, where people play on muddy November days. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and I have refereed matches in Wales where you could not see the 25—when it was called the 25. The rule about kicking into touch left us totally lost: when we took our spectacles off you could not see whether the ball had bounced into touch or not.
For all of that, it seems to me that public money should be put into sporting activity for reasons that go well beyond sport, which have been mentioned in this debate: for health, community cohesion and well-being. All these things, and not just medals, must be a product or an outcome. In all those ways, I support those noble Lords who have made this point very eloquently and from very different positions in these fields of endeavour.
I finish by remembering the film “Invictus”, which showed South African rugby and Nelson Mandela and all of that. The great moment for me was when the rugby players in the South African team—all white—were taken in their bus by the captain of the team to a township. They did not know what to do or why they had been brought there, but they showed kids who kicked a bit of rag around as a football the glories of passing the ball and playing rugby. Now the South African team has black people in it, and I am sure it arose from those sorts of beginnings. Participation, revitalising communities and spreading money out with that must be the sole and overriding objective. I look forward to what the Minister is going to say about who he played rugby with in his day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am staggering to my feet with an old sporting injury, which has come back to haunt me. I, too, thank the noble Lord for securing this debate. What a marvellous collection of sportsmen and sportswomen—I should say ex-sportsmen and ex-sportswomen—we have here to talk about this. It is an important issue that is being raised. It is particularly enjoyable for me as the Minister responding because there have been hardly any questions at all, although that is genuinely because it has been a true debate, where people have put their points of view. That is quite rare, I have found.
The timing is especially apt following UK Sport’s announcement last week confirming the medal targets for the forthcoming Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Pyeongchang. It has set a target of five medals in the Olympics, which would represent Team GB’s best ever performance at a Winter Games. ParalympicsGB’s target of seven medals would be its best performance since lottery funding began. Whatever one’s views of the current no-compromise mission of UK Sport, I think that noble Lords will join me in wishing those sports men and women the very best of luck as they compete for medals in South Korea in a few weeks’ time.
I agree that the noble Lord has raised a subject which is worthy of debate—namely, considering the current UK Sport funding model and how it relates to the strength of sport at the grass-roots level. The fantastic successes at recent Olympic and Paralympic Games, exemplified by what the IOC acknowledged as the greatest Games of modern times at London 2012, have showcased to the world the very best that Britain has to offer. As has been said, the no-compromise approach delivered the greatest performances in a century at Rio 2016, with 67 Olympic and 147 Paralympic medals, and Britain coming second on both medal tables. We should remember that thanks should also go to National Lottery players, without whom none of this would have been possible. Noble Lords who do not think that medals are the only criteria to consider must acknowledge that the public, and the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, like watching our athletes on the podium at these Games.
The noble Lord’s Question is right to raise the importance of sport at all levels. The Government’s interest in areas such as safeguarding, anti-doping and tackling inactivity is set out in the sport strategy. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I can say that UK Sport is currently planning its next public consultation on its strategic direction for supporting elite sport post Tokyo, and the results of the consultation should be available at the end of this year. In 2014, UK Sport’s remit was validated by its public consultation at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, particularly asked me to define what UK Sport’s mission is. It is currently to,
“inspire the nation through Olympic and Paralympic success”.
So its remit, in which it has undoubtedly succeeded, was to deliver Olympic and Paralympic medal success. The home countries’ sports councils’ role is to support participation and talent development. However, UK Sport also has other responsibilities which are best delivered at a UK level, such as bidding for and staging major sporting events in this country, and hosting major events on home soil that showcase our athletes and deliver an economic impact for the UK. That is aligned with our Sporting Future strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned having a seat at the table at the highest level of international sport, and UK Sport is there to help secure that. It will help to deliver impact through athletes volunteering in schools and communities, and sharing their knowledge and expertise with the wider sector.
In pursuit of elite success, we have not forgotten grass-roots sport. The Government, with the lottery, are investing around £1 billion in grass-roots sport through Sport England over the current four-year period to increase participation and activity. To put that in perspective, that is nearly three-and-a-half times as much as the current Olympic cycle amount. Sport England’s Active Lives data show that more than 60% of people aged 16-plus are regularly active. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, activity is one thing that we ought to consider as important, because it is best for the health of the nation. If sport helps with that and helps to get people out of the front door on a cold January morning, it is a very good thing.
The latest data from Sport England’s Active Lives survey will be published in March. We hope to see continued positive levels of activity, which can contribute to physical and mental well-being and individual, social and economic development.
UK Sport’s remit of achieving medal success for the Tokyo cycle is set and performance targets remain on track. Annual reviews are held, which give unfunded sports the chance to bid with fresh evidence of performance to obtain UK Sport investment. The latest annual review decisions will be made on the 31st of this month; of course, they are a matter for UK Sport and in keeping with our arm’s-length principles.
The capacity for long-term planning is part of Team GB and ParalympicsGB’s success. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, lottery funding is crucial to UK Sport in making its funding allocations on a four-year basis ahead of each Games, which is why the DDCMS has underwritten any potential lottery shortfall so that it can confidently plan ahead of 2020.
The lottery is a matter of some concern: lottery ticket sales were £6.9 billion in 2016-17, which was lower than in recent years. Nevertheless, it is still the fourth best sales performance since the National Lottery began in 1994. We expect good cause returns in 2017-18 to be broadly similar to those in 2016-17, but we are concerned and we are looking into what we can do about the National Lottery. Camelot has carried out a comprehensive review of its business in response to those falling returns, which I welcome as a positive step. The Minister for Sport recently announced proposals to ban companies from offering bets on EuroMillions, which affects our National Lottery. DDCMS has been working with Camelot and lottery distributors to improve awareness of the good causes and projects that benefit from National Lottery funding. We have underwritten UK Sport’s lottery funding until 2020, but noble Lords will appreciate that it is a big ask to expect the Chancellor to guarantee it beyond 2020. As I said before, no funding criteria have been set beyond Tokyo, and UK Sport will consider the Paris 2024 funding cycle at the appropriate time.
Despite how it may appear from newspaper headlines, UK Sport is committed to supporting unfunded Olympic and Paralympic sports by offering knowledge sharing, technical support and services to sports that may wish to bid for major events in the UK. UK Sport will consider investment and support for unfunded sports wishing to apply for international federation positions—which my noble friend Lord Moynihan told us were so important—as well as wider advice, including participation in its international leadership programme.
UK Sport and Sport England work closely to ensure alignment of resources, messaging and support that they can offer on education and development programmes for sports and sporting talent. They also collaborate on duty of care, organisational culture, conduct, the implementation of the sports governance code and investment in talent and high-performance programmes. Over the next four years, Sport England is investing £225 million in national governing bodies and their work with grass-roots participants, through its core market investment programme, as well as £6 million in the almost 400 athletes who are not yet podium ready, supported by the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme, providing academic support in areas such as sports science, medicine, strength, conditioning and performance lifestyle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, mentioned activity. I agree with that. The point is that we need to educate people about the benefits of activity. If sport helps to do that, then so be it. It might make exercise more fun, for example, but getting out and taking more exercise is difficult. We need to work on that, I agree.
I thank my noble friend Lord Wasserman for his spirited advocacy of basketball. He knows of course, that specific funding decisions for individual sports are deliberately not in Ministers’ hands but are confined to arm’s-length bodies. But he wants money from non-DDCMS sources, so I also wish him well on that.
I was going to mention the medal winners from Wales, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, did that. I conclude by emphasising that we acknowledge that there is an issue to be debated, that UK Sport has done a fantastic job in the remit it was given, but that it may not be the correct remit for ever. There is a consultation taking place this year and I am sure noble Lords will want to contribute to it. UK Sport and Sport England, which work on grass-roots sport, work closely together to take into account sport at both levels. We as a Government remain committed to supporting both elite and grass-roots sport. We will continue to seek improvements for the benefit of both levels of sport and for the nation as a whole.
House of Lords
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Freedom of Religion and Belief
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government warmly welcome the report, which is well informed and demonstrates the deep commitment of its authors. I wrote to the all-party parliamentary group on 8 December with an initial response to the recommendations, several of which have already been reflected in the Government’s approach to freedom of religion or belief. As we continue to push forward on this issue, we will continue to reflect on the recommendations made in this excellent report.
Lord Suri (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. He will know that the Government stated in their response to the APPG report that the stabilisation unit meets with religious and other key actors overseas to better understand FoRB. I am pleased the Government have expressed a desire to look for ways to strengthen this work. Can the Minister explain how information gathered in these meetings is currently being fed into government programming, and to government posts, to help better understand and tackle patterns of religious persecution? Can he also inform your Lordships’ House how he is tracking and assessing the responses from ambassadors and high commissioners to the letters he sent, which asked what they are doing to advance freedom of religion and belief?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am pleased to inform my noble friend, and indeed the House in general, that there is very much cross-government co-ordination in this respect. I am delighted that, in our approach to the importance of focus on freedom of religion and belief, there is underlying support, by colleagues across DfID in particular, on ensuring that that essential element of our human rights provision is also understood across the world. On the specific issue of the different posts, I wrote to every post shortly after taking up the position of Minister for Human Rights, and in that regard we have had a positive response. Most recently, together with my right honourable friend Mark Field MP, the Minister for Asia, I wrote to each high commission and ambassador for the priority countries of Asia, and we have received very positive responses about the importance of prioritising freedom of religion and belief in our diplomatic efforts across the world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the APPG. I certainly support its work and its report, but religion is often used as a cover for oppressing other minorities, particularly the LGBT community. A charity I am a patron of, an HIV centre in the East End of London, is working with faith groups on practical ways we can build respect and address concerns. Does the Foreign Office see the benefit of this sort of work, and is it supporting such work in other countries?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord knows I agree with him totally. We have seen exactly those kinds of initiatives working domestically, which are of great value. In discussions we have had—and he will be aware of this—I have often said that faith communities should approach all these issues, including those of LGBT rights, as defined human rights issues. When we look at these issues through the prism of religion, the issues of fairness, equality and justice should prevail.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the APPG for Freedom of Religion or Belief, I fully support the need to look beyond rhetoric towards positive action to protect freedom of belief and human rights. Will the Minister agree that we urgently need to decouple the linking of trade with human rights? Only last September, the then Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, cautioned against criticising human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia because of the danger of losing contracts. Does the Minister agree with the Soviet human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, who said that we must always be even-handed in our pursuit of human rights?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I believe that is our approach. Through our diplomatic corps, to whom I pay great tribute, we are able to have not only public but, importantly, private and candid discussions with countries around the world on the importance of human rights and the equality of human rights. The other area of opportunity where I believe the UK can play a key role is that, as we build democratic institutions and countries look towards their constitutions, those constitutions must reflect equal human rights for all.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as a founding member of the APPG, I thank the Minister for his response to the report. Can he provide details about the £600,000-worth of projects funded by the Magna Carta fund which the Government have said have led directly to positive freedom of religion or belief outcomes in 20 countries? If they are so positive, what will the Government do to ensure that the principles behind those projects will be spread elsewhere?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, through the Magna Carta fund we have been working in our priority countries to ensure that freedom of religion and belief is raised, not just directly but—a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—by building and working with civil society organisations and human rights defenders within those countries to ensure that they have political, diplomatic and financial support. In further support of those objectives, I am delighted, as I said earlier, that we are working hand in glove with our colleagues at DfID. There is an added fund now of £12 million which is targeted at development assistance but also at ensuring that human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are enshrined in our projects and support across the world.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, noting recommendation 5, will Her Majesty’s Government provide detail about how DfID assesses its partners’ commitment to freedom of religion and belief when determining where the funding goes around the world?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to the detail. I have written specifically on that point to the APPG. There are assessment criteria that colleagues at DfID apply. Those ensure that freedom of religion and belief, as well as other elements of the wider human rights agenda, as I said, are protected in the support that we provide.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, can I bring us back home and welcome this week’s announcement by Sajid Javid that the Government will fund a new strand of the Lessons from Auschwitz programme in support of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Union of Jewish Students to tackle anti-Semitism, prejudice and intolerance on campus? Does the Minister agree with me that it may be a welcome initiative if each political party—some more than others—would ensure that all future candidates be taken on such an educational visit before they enter Parliament?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend is quite right to raise the important issue of anti-Semitism. It is a scourge that we all despise, and it is important that we come together and raise our voices wherever we see religion being used to discriminate, be it anti-Semitism or Islamophobia—or any particular view or belief. On the specific point of Auschwitz, if I may provide a personal anecdote, I remember visiting Auschwitz with schoolchildren just before I took on my ministerial responsibilities at the Department for Communities and Local Government. As anyone who has been there knows, while we have heard about it and may have seen films about it, the first experience you have is chilling, and then you reflect on the importance of what is in front of you. I totally agree with my noble friend: it ensures that your mind becomes focused, that never means never, and that we never allow such a genocide to take place again.
Brexit: Trade Agreements
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to avoid limitations on United Kingdom sovereignty in negotiating trade agreements with other states after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, after leaving the EU, it will be the UK Government, not the EU, who will decide what trade agreements to pursue and what the contents of those agreements will be. Decisions on all future trade agreements will be made here in the UK, based on what is in the best interests of the UK.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, unless we go for unilateral free trade, I assume that trade agreements will be a bargain between the UK and others, in which we will have to make concessions, which will affect domestic law. Does the Minister recall that the Indian Government, for example, have made it clear that they would expect concessions on freedom of movement, which would affect British migration policy, in return for a trade agreement? Does she recall the US Commerce Secretary saying that he would expect the UK to move towards accepting US regulations, instead of EU regulations, in phytosanitary and other areas, in return for a trade agreement? Does she recall that the NAFTA trade agreement allows US multinationals to sue in foreign courts, and that Eli Lilly is currently suing in Canadian courts, demanding that Canada changes its domestic patent law? Are those not all incursions on sovereignty?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord for his question. What I can say is that, for the first time in 40 years, we will have the ability to operate an independent trade policy. We will be negotiating on behalf of the UK, in the interests of the UK. Clearly, any trade agreement is a negotiation between two parties, but we will always ensure that all parts of the UK are taken into account when we negotiate to benefit the UK as a whole. That is why we would undertake those trade agreements.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in warmly welcoming the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, and does she therefore look forward, as I certainly do, to receiving the noble Lord’s support when we deal with the Act that most significantly diminished British parliamentary sovereignty, namely, the 1972 European Communities Act?
Baroness Fairhead
We have made a decision as a country that we will leave the EU, and as part of that we will be leaving the jurisdiction of the European court. Clearly, what is of concern is that its rulings are binding on all national courts, including those of the UK, as we agreed. However, when entering into international agreements, no state has ever submitted to the direct jurisdiction of a court in which it does not have representation—and we have representation. When we have the ability to enter into new international agreements, our aim will be to make sure that we keep all our protections for the environment and human rights. Those protections are important, as we maintain those agreements.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
On the subject of parliamentary sovereignty, does my noble friend not agree with the Supreme Court that, while Parliament authorised the referendum and the Government are therefore right to pursue the discussions that they are pursuing, it is also the case, as the Supreme Court has ruled, that the outcome of those negotiations must be laid before Parliament for approval?
Baroness Fairhead
As my noble friend said, this is a matter that is still under discussion in the other place, and that is what is happening.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the Minister not agree that the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, appears to be misplaced, in that the most onerous trade agreement can never abrogate sovereignty?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord for his input. Yes, the ability of a country to regulate on its own behalf in the public interest is well recognised in international law. Therefore, we would expect to be able to continue to regulate in our national interest. In the terms of our agreements, that is what we will be achieving in our agreements—going for the UK’s best interests.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The EU trade deals have been underpinned by a commitment to human rights, to public health, to safe food and to fair trade, not just in the national interest but in the interest of fairness across the world. It has been leading on that. Can the Minister guarantee that none of these rights will be in jeopardy as we negotiate new trade deals with third countries?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Baroness for that input. It is true that, within the EU treaties, our trade agreements have been underpinned by really deep and enforceable environmental and human rights protections. There is an absolute commitment by the Government that those will be maintained as we go forward.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, medicines, chemicals and aviation are a fundamental part of the British economy and will be key elements of any trade agreements going forward. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to propose that those sectors will continue to be under EU regulation, rather than UK regulation? Any future trade agreements will therefore have to comply with EU regulations, over which the UK will not have a say, and those components will be under the ongoing auspices of the European Court of Justice.
Baroness Fairhead
I cannot give that assurance to the noble Lord, as it has not been agreed. What I can give an assurance on is that the UK has been at the very forefront of the highest standards for public safety and the environment, not just for the UK but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, for the world. We will continue that commitment because it is an absolutely critical part of the belief of, I think, all parts of this House.
Public Health: Strength and Balance Programme
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jordan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to provide local authorities with sufficient resources to enable them to provide universal access to the Strength and Balance Programme for adults over 65.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, we are providing £16 billion to local authorities to spend on public health during the course of this Parliament. It is for local authorities to determine their spending priorities, reflecting the needs of their populations. The Chief Medical Officer recommends that adults undertake strength and balance activities on at least two days a week. Most local authorities provide opportunities for these activities within their falls prevention programmes.
Lord Jordan (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply and declare an interest as deputy president of ROSPA. Will the Minister acknowledge that it is the failure to tackle adequately the chronic causes that means a quarter of a million elderly people attend accident and emergency each year with fall-related injuries, which makes an NHS crisis inevitable when seasonal illness strikes the same social group? To ease the unacceptable burden on A&E departments, will he urge the Government to give more tangible support to local authorities and to age-related and safety organisations whose work with elderly people, through what they call strength and balance exercise-based programmes, can and does significantly reduce the risk of injuries to those taking part?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is quite right to point out the importance of preventing falls. Around 95% of hip fractures come about through falls, at particular cost and pain to the individual, of course, but also to the wider economy as a whole. I should point out that Public Health England supports a number of activities, one of which is a partnership with Sport England that has trained 5,000 health professionals in delivering physical activities, including strength and balance work. I agree that more needs to be done at local authority level, particularly as we have an ageing population, but there is good work going on at the local level.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, in parts of Cornwall there has been real success with the strength and balance programme, with a huge reduction in falls. We all know that prevention is always better and cheaper than the cure. Can the Minister tell the House what work has been done to determine how much could be saved for the NHS as a result of a total rollout of this programme and why reductions to local authority public health budgets are jeopardising such programmes?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I have not seen an extrapolation of the benefits the noble Baroness talks about but they would clearly be significant. There are a number of schemes going on at a local level, which it is important to point out. One of them, which we have discussed before, is the “Dance to Health” programme that started with six pilots two years ago. That is now a nationwide scheme across England and Wales. Local authorities should look at precisely that kind of activity. Public Health England is committed to making sure that local authorities understand the Chief Medical Officer’s targets, so that we see more of these programmes taking place.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. There is evidence that every £1 spent on physiotherapy can save £1.50 on the cost of a fall along the whole trajectory. There is also evidence that targeted, multifactorial risk assessment of people at particular risk can decrease falls by 60%. Therefore, will the Minister make sure that falls prevention is viewed across the whole of the NHS and not only delegated to local authorities and programmes outside, because that would miss some of the people who are at the highest risk of falls?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out the benefits of physiotherapy. She might be aware of a scheme in Middlesbrough that is providing for people who have fallen a precise pathway from physio into community activities involving strength and balance work. As ever, one of the challenges is to make sure that all local authorities know about such programmes and put them in place. They are not necessarily expensive, but they take a bit of time. I will make sure that Public Health England is taking that attitude of spreading good practice across the country.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, NICE’s most recent and excellent quality statements in January 2017 offer guidance on falls and the importance of multifactorial risk assessments and interventions. These interventions require resources, particularly from social care specialists and public health workers, who we know are at the sharp end because of the financial pressure the Government have put on local authority funding and the successive reductions of public health budgets. Now that the Secretary of State has responsibility for social care, will he therefore ensure that strength and balance programmes are properly resourced? When will NICE next update its statistics on the uptake of guidance on this matter?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I will write to the noble Baroness with specifics on the NICE guidelines, which are incredibly important because they establish best practice. Of course, it is then incumbent on professionals to follow that best practice. We know that public health budgets have been under pressure, but local authorities are still getting £16 billion over five years. That is a lot of money and they can use some of it to focus on such activities. Moreover, in the spring Budget last year, there were big increases in the social care budget, which I know we all welcomed. That money is particularly focused on older people and preventing falls, which is what we want to see as part of that programme too.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, has raised a matter that is of close interest to a large number of noble Lords. I wonder whether it would be worth considering having access to the programme to which he refers in the Palace of Westminster.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an extremely good suggestion and I look forward to talking to him about that. Perhaps he could lead such a class.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the suggestions that have been made, perhaps I could pass on a tip: playing tennis is quite good for this sort of thing.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Indeed it is, as are other things such as yoga, tai chi and—believe it or not—carrying shopping bags.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners. What assessment have the Government made of the provision of accountable care organisations to drive the integration across primary care, secondary care and social care to achieve the kinds of objectives that are the subject of this question?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. We know that we want an integrated health service, particularly as we have older people with comorbidities using a range of services. The five-year forward view—NHS England’s own strategy for the future—talks about how that integration will take place through what the noble Lord calls accountable care organisations or systems. We are moving ahead with these: indeed, the most recent Budget is providing significant capital to support that integration. This is the future of the NHS, and we all need to get behind it.
Transport for the North
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support they are providing in relation to Transport for the North’s draft Strategic Transport Plan, published on 16 January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, Transport for the North’s draft strategic transport plan is an important step forward towards the north setting out its vision and priorities for transport with one voice. We have committed up to £260 million for TfN to establish itself as England’s first statutory sub-national transport body, to develop the business case for Northern Powerhouse Rail, and to implement smart ticketing across the north of England. We are providing substantial technical support at official level.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the strategic transport plan for the north covers the whole of the north of England, and that is a good thing. However, it is based on the seven or eight largest cities in the north of England and has very little to say about what I would call the areas at the edges and the places in between, particularly smaller towns and rural areas. Does the Minister agree that if all the proposals that are put forward and implied in this document were to be carried out, the cost at today’s prices would certainly be more than £100 billion? Does the Government’s enthusiasm for this imply that their previous policy that such schemes were really considered only if they were in London or the south-east has now been changed?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am not sure that that was the previous government policy. The strategy which has been set out is out for consultation, and Transport for the North will be speaking to people across the north to develop and finalise it. We will see the final plan in the summer and respond to it then. On the noble Lord’s point about it focusing on specific cities, it actually suggests strategic development corridors that cover the whole of the north and the central Pennines area, which I know will interest the noble Lord. I encourage everybody to contribute to that consultation.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Will my noble friend update the House on the progress being made on the improvements to the A1 between Newcastle and Berwick?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the strategic road between London and Newcastle will be upgraded to a full motorway by the end of the year, but I am aware that there are still issues north of Newcastle on the way up to Scotland. As I mentioned before, one of the strategic development corridors includes the east coast of Scotland and will be looking at exactly this project. I am aware that it may be some months before we see the final plan, and I will certainly see if we can take action quicker.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I have no intention of storming out of your Lordships’ House, but I share my noble friend Lord Prescott’s concern that strategic plans that have no chance of being implemented mislead people in the north of England into believing that something is about to happen. If the linked rail and road across the Pennines linking Hull, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Newcastle is to become a reality, it will take real government investment. Will the Minister speak to the beleaguered Transport Secretary about turning mythology into reality?
Baroness Sugg
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his continued presence, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who was not able to stay for the full launch of the plan. We have worked carefully with people from across the north on ensuring that we get the right balance of powers here, and we are looking forward to seeing the plan. The Secretary of State has ultimate accountability to Parliament, and with his statutory role, it is right that he makes the final decisions. We will be considering that project carefully, and we will be ready to make the investment.
Lord Whitby (Con)
My Lords, the Midlands is the largest economic area outside London. It attracts more inward investment and creates more start-up businesses than anywhere in the United Kingdom outside the capital. Its companies export to 178 countries worldwide, and it is still the only region in the United Kingdom with a trading surplus with China. In order to capitalise on and build on this robust achievement and complement the Government’s growth agenda, will the Minister say whether Midlands Connect can benefit from devolution arrangements similar to those of Transport for the North?
Baroness Sugg
Yes, my Lords. We fully intend to create more statutory transport bodies, and I welcome the work of Midlands Connect in bringing together local authorities and partners, including Highways England, HS2 and Network Rail. My noble friend rightly points out the potential of the Midlands. We look forward to seeing the proposal for Midlands Connect, and we hope that it will become England’s second statutory transport body.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, this document is very ambitious and there are some very expensive proposals. However, within it, Transport for the North talks about some of the precursors, including the Great North Rail Project—the trans-Pennine route upgrade—and indicates that it would like to see a firm commitment about that upgrade and electrification in early 2018. That is where we have now arrived. Can the Minister give that commitment?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are absolutely committed to improving journeys on the trans-Pennine route, bringing in the state-of-the-art trains, longer carriages and more frequent services that the passengers would like. We want to go further and are planning to spend £3 billion to upgrade the key routes between Manchester, Leeds and York to give passengers those better, faster and more reliable journeys.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for this Question because it has caused me to look at the document. You have to get to page 86 before it says anything about money:
“TfN’s status as a pan-regional organisation, with a range of stakeholders but limited fiscal powers, means that a bespoke but credible funding and financing framework will be required. A substantial element of funding will come from central Government budgets.”
Is the Secretary of State going to buy into this plan and that substantial element of funding?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, absolutely—we are waiting to see the final plan which we will then of course consider. If the initial funding settlement for TfN does not include the funding for transport projects, it will be allocated separately from central government funds.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Thursday 18th January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2018 - (17 Jan 2018)
Business of the House
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Teverson to two hours.
United States: Foreign Policy
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
That this House takes note of the effect of the foreign policy of the United States of America on inter-state relationships around the world, particularly in the light of the United Kingdom’s changing relationships with other European countries.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, I will wait for noble Lords to perform the usual exodus. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem has just said, “What we want is genesis, not exodus”—which may well be correct.
I am privileged to lead this debate. For reasons that I will not bother the House with, I have been spending a lot of time recently doing some research into the 1930s. I am struck—actually, horrified—by the similarities between our suddenly turbulent and unpredictable age and those years. Then as now, nationalism and protectionism were on the rise; democracy seemed to have failed; people hungered for the government of great men; and those who suffered most from economic pain felt alienated and turned towards simplistic solutions and strident voices. Public institutions, conventional politics and the old establishments were everywhere mistrusted and disbelieved. Compromise was out of fashion; the centre collapsed in favour of extremes; the normal order of things did not function; change and even revolution was more appealing than the status quo; and fake news—built around the effective lie—carried more weight in public discourse than rational arguments and provable facts. Painting a lie on the side of a bus and driving it around the country would have seemed very normal in those days, too.
Perhaps the last time that we stood as close to large-scale conflict as we stand now in the world was at the height of the Cold War—but then we had a comfort which I fear we do not enjoy today. Then, the western liberal democracies stood together in defence of our interests and our shared values. Now it pains me to say that, under President Trump, the most powerful of our number thinks that standing together is less important than going it alone, that the abdication of leadership and responsibility is preferable to engaging in the international space and that collective action takes second place to “America First”.
Throughout the long years of the American century we have taken great comfort in the fact that our alliance with the United States and its Presidents has been built not just on shared interests but on shared values. Today we have to face the wrenching reality that this US President seems not to share our values; his recent racist comments have shockingly illuminated that fact. The liberal principles that have underpinned every civilised age, every peaceful period and every prosperous society are now under attack as never before, but President Trump appears more aligned with those forces ranged against liberal values than with those seeking to defend them. Throughout the American century we have taken comfort in the fact that the leader of the western world, although flawed like the rest of us, was well informed, judicious and cautious about going to war. Now I fear that we have an American President who seems all too frequently ignorant of the facts, unpredictable, foolhardy and reckless. Bang goes my invitation to the state dinner.
This is frightening stuff for those who, like me, place their faith in the Atlantic alliance. So what do we do about it? For the moment I fear that the answer is to grin and bear it in the hope that the US will find its way back to sanity. After all, we in Britain are not entirely free of this kind of lurch into stupidity ourselves. When the battle between the America that we know and love and Donald Trump ends, I think only one side will remain standing: either Donald Trump will destroy American democracy as we know it or American democracy will destroy Donald Trump. Personally, my money remains on the strength of that old and deep democracy.
However, even if on both sides of the Atlantic we can find our way back to saner and safer ground, is there something deeper going on here? The slow divergence of interests between Europe and the US does not date from President Trump’s election, although that has undoubtedly accelerated the process. Even under President Obama the US’s gaze was arguably looking more west across the Pacific than east across the Atlantic. I have no doubt that NATO and the Atlantic axis will remain Europe’s most important alliance for as far ahead as we can see, but it will not be the same alliance as it has been for these last 50 years. To remain strong, in my view, the Atlantic relationship will have to look far more like JF Kennedy’s 1962 vision of a twin-pillar NATO than the present conjunction of a giant on one side and 21 pygmies on the other.
We will need a NATO that is mature enough to cope with areas where our interests do not perfectly elide. We should not be shy, for example, of calling out Israel for its illegal occupations just because Washington chooses not to, or of strenuously supporting the Iran nuclear deal just because Mr Trump wants to wreck it. I have no doubt that the United States will remain the world’s most powerful nation for the next decade or more, but the context in which she holds her power has now totally changed. The American century was one of the few periods in history when the world was monopolar and dominated by a single colossus—when all the compasses had to point to Washington to define their position for or against. Now we are moving into a multipolar world, more like Europe in the 19th century than the last decades of the 20th. A foreign policy for the next 50 years based on what we have done for the last 50 will be a foreign policy clumsily out of tune with the times—which I think is exactly where we currently are.
Everything has changed in the world—except, it sometimes seems, Britain’s view of it. British foreign policy in the post-Trump era will have to be much more flexible, much more subtle and much more capable of building relationships on shared interests—even with those beyond the Atlantic club, and even with those with whom we do not necessarily share values—than the simplicities of the last decades, when we only needed to snuggle close to our friendly neighbourhood superpower to be safe and powerful.
In a world dominated by a single superpower, might—not, unhappily, diplomacy—is the determiner of outcomes. So our present foreign policy is dominated not by diplomacy but by the use of high explosive. See a problem in the world, drop a bomb on it: that is what our policy has been. The string of western defeats in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, most humiliating of all, Syria should tell us that this age is over. We have lost contact with the essential truth of Clausewitz that war is an extension of diplomacy by other means. We have remembered the war but we have forgotten the diplomacy—and so we have failed.
In an age when building alliances will protect and enhance Britain’s interests better than using military capacity alone, high explosive will, I believe, be less useful to us than effective diplomacy. To be diminishing our diplomatic capacity, as we are currently doing, is folly of a very high order.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the current slide towards isolationism is that, in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, the only solutions to our problems are multinational ones. Climate change, trade imbalance, resource depletion, population growth, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, poverty, migration and conflict suppression are the greatest problems we face—and not one of them can be solved by nations acting alone. As a medium-sized nation with global reach but, sadly, diminishing weight, it is in our interests to see a rules-based world order rather than one shaped by might. So actively pursuing the strengthening of multilateral institutions seems to me a necessary cardinal principle of a sensible British foreign policy.
Lastly, we have to deal with the consequences of our own folly. I make no secret of it: we Lib Dems seek to reverse Brexit, which has already resulted in a catastrophic shrinkage of our ability to protect our interests abroad. I reject the notion that in seeking to reverse Brexit we are acting either undemocratically or unpatriotically—any more than, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who I recognise as a true democrat and a patriot, was acting in contravention of either of those principles by constantly and determinedly seeking to change the country’s mind after the 1975 referendum. But one thing is certain: whether we are in the EU or out, our foreign policy must continue to place its first emphasis on working intimately with our European neighbours because that is the best way—indeed, the only way—to pursue our nation’s interests in a dangerous, volatile and turbulent age.
It is too little recognised just how much the terms of our existence as Europeans have changed over the last two decades. Europe now faces an isolationist US President to our west, the most aggressive Russian President of recent times to our east, and, all around us, economic powers now growing up, some already stronger than any single European nation. The right reaction to this new context of our existence is not to allow ourselves to be broken up and scattered, but to deepen European co-operation and co-ordination. This way only does our country’s best interest lie. So, inside the single market and customs union or out, inside the EU or separated from it, our only sensible foreign policy is to proceed in lock-step with our European partners.
I can put it no better than the Government’s own paper on post-Brexit foreign policy. Britain’s future relationship with the EU should be,
“unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development”.
Precisely, my Lords. The question we debate today is: do the Government mean that, or will the country’s interests once again be hijacked by the anti-European prejudices of the Tory party? I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for promoting this Motion and debate. I do not disagree with some of his concerns; in fact, I agree with some but certainly not all of them. I disagree particularly with the weight that he places on 20th-century blocs and alliances in this completely different age. That is charmingly out of date and old-fashioned but I understand it.
Whenever we discuss the special relationship and relations with the United States, we tend to hear two mantras constantly repeated. The first is that America remains the superpower leader of the free world, and the second is that the US President, Donald Trump, is the most powerful man in the world. I question both those statements in modern conditions. I dispute the first proposition because, although America is a great nation, a good friend and ally and the world’s most powerful economy by far, it has painfully discovered that it can no longer get its way in the reordering of the world. Indeed, that is confirmed by the recent studies by the Pentagon authorities, who fully recognise that America’s role has changed and that it is in a new era of what the authors call America’s “post-primacy”. In a world of networks, the whole concept of a superpower dominating the world has to be radically revised. I doubt the second proposition about Donald Trump because, as we now clearly see, his powers are limited both by internal US constitutional restraints and by forces larger than the USA itself, or, indeed, any one country, and much more complex. America clearly no longer gets its way merely by virtue of its colossal defence spending, and in these conditions there is no decisive victory to be secured, no real army to be defeated—the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, is right about that—and no definite end to a conflict. The battle ceases to be primarily on the battlefield; it becomes a matter of narrative and persuasion, of winning the story as well as of outright military operations.
That raises two issues. First, technology has greatly empowered the Davids against the Goliaths. Lethal weaponry can now be procured with ease and at low cost, which can put power into the hands of the smallest and often most invisible group or operating military cell or tribe. American foreign policy experts have just not fully understood that size no longer wins in the network world. Secondly, it needs to be the right kind of defence spending that actually wins friends and defends, by securing peace and stability rather than just by making enemies. What the Army calls non-kinetic means of winning become the most vital aspects of national defences. The basic point is that sheer overwhelming force is no longer the decisive factor, as vividly demonstrated, as we all know, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and possibly over North Korea. America can no more “win” on its own, despite its colossal arsenal, than we can.
As for Donald Trump, while I make no excuses for his very uncouth undiplomatic language, there are two reasons not to write off his presidency so soon. His bark is plainly much worse than his bite. The first reason is that within the American domestic context he is finding it very hard to get his way. On issue after issue he has been defeated. But secondly, and more important from our position in the UK, it is obvious that on the international stage his scope and space are highly limited, partly for the reasons already mentioned and partly because there are now global forces at work which are much larger and much more powerful than even the great USA itself. By “larger forces” I mean the rising power of Asia—China in particular, but not just China—which now produces the bulk of the world’s GNP outside the OECD. I mean the remorseless growth of new networks cutting across the old rules of sovereign states and severely limiting, indeed cancelling out, the role of the superpowers of the last century, whether we are referring to China or the United States, ensuring that the rhetoric of “America first” simply does not work in practice. It is not quite a post-western or a post-Atlantic world, but it is one in which power is shared with the Indian Ocean and the Pacific arenas.
These dramatically changed circumstances colour our relationship with the United States in entirely new ways. It is still special, in that we share many common values and have obvious affinities based on history and culture, but it is quite different from the relationships of the past. America is our partner in the new age, but not our boss. We do not need to be—in fact, must not become—its obedient poodle, let alone its gun dog. The phrase “solid not slavish” was used by my noble friend Lord Hague when he summed it up a while ago, and it remains an entirely apposite and concise description of what the relationship should be. The network is a great equaliser of nations and people, and it is healthy to escape from our overdependency on America. To put the matter colloquially, in the age of hyperconnectivity and soft power, we have other fish to fry.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, it is very difficult to say something positive about President Donald Trump. I am going to stretch the patience and maybe the credulity of the House and try to do so. As he has rampaged across the world, he has done something valuable, even if he has done it unconsciously. With his attacks on the American press, he has alerted all of us to the value and importance in our society of a free and vibrant media. With his partisan attacks on “so-called” judges, he has underlined across the world that free societies are based on the rule of law. When he equates neo-Nazis with anti-Nazi demonstrators, he has highlighted to the rest of us that racialism and anti-Semitism are a cancer in a civilised society. When he attacks allies for being dependencies and questions the value of NATO, he stirs the memory of how NATO saved our continent from Stalin and ended the violence in the Balkans. When he sneers about fake news, he reminds decent people that there is only the truth and not what he calls “alternative facts”. And when he attacks diplomacy, internationalism and co-operation between nations, and he slashes the budget and personnel of America’s Foreign Service and the UN, we in contrast can see that this complex, dangerous and interdependent world needs diplomacy.
He may not realise it and he may never have intended it, but Donald Trump may yet have revived and reinforced among thinking people globally that there is a better alternative to the shouty, incoherent ravings of a very temporary American President. In doing so, he will have done us all a service.
Beyond President Trump, in this country we need to face up to a very uncertain future. The Defence Secretary on Monday in the Commons outlined the grave threats that we face, when he said there were “four principal threats” to our country and the fourth one is,
“the erosion of the rules-based international order”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/18; col. 611.]
I believe what he said; I agree with him. You might normally expect me to now advocate an increase in our defence budget, and I do, but I also want to make the case for diplomacy and an end to the vandalism of our national interest that is represented by the degrading of the Foreign Office and its budget. Our military is after all the last line of our nation’s defence, not the first. The military is there to reinforce and stiffen diplomacy and then robustly to act when diplomacy fails, but hard power without soft power is a recipe for constant conflict not enduring peace.
Consider this. The whole budget for the Foreign Office in 2017-18 will be £1.2 billion. Strip out cross-Whitehall funds and non-discretionary funding like subscriptions to the UN and NATO, and it is down to £900 million a year. That whole year’s budget is less than the United States is spending on its new London embassy alone. That is £900 million to run the whole diplomatic effort—in 168 countries and territories and nine multinational organisations. In contrast to that, the National Health Service spends £2,000 million a week in this country. The global staff of the Foreign Office has been reduced by 20% in the last decade. In contrast, the staff of the United States of America in the UK alone represents one-third of the total global staffing of the Foreign Office.
In a world with multiple threats to our safety and security and with the complexity of Brexit determining our long-term future prosperity, this savage amputation of our international diplomatic capacity is frighteningly short-sighted and self-harming. In our Diplomatic Service we invest in the protection and the projection of our national interest. We in this country have other powerful instruments of soft power too: the BBC World Service, the British Council, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and even—I declare an interest as vice-chairman—the internationally acclaimed Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo. It is time we abandoned the wrecking-ball approach of the Trumpian world and reinforced, not slashed, that diplomatic first line of defence.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, in our current discussions about what is sometimes called the special relationship, it is inevitable that the character and personality of the current President will be a dominant feature. There are two temptingly polarised alternatives: the President is an unpredictable maverick and he will test the relationship to its destruction; alternatively, Trump is but a blip, the new President will repair the damage and normal service will be resumed. My case is that neither of these is tenable. There has never been an unsullied golden age in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. It is true that when the personal relationships between President and Prime Minister have been strong, greater influence has perhaps been available from this side of the Atlantic. But if we remember the closeness of Thatcher and Reagan, it is also true that that did not stand in the way of the illegal invasion of Grenada by the United States.
From the point of view of the United States, the relationship is one of choice, but for the United Kingdom it has been one of necessity. The post-war decline of the United Kingdom, the end of empire and the expression that we had lost an empire but not found a role meant that we had to look elsewhere. What better role than to be close to the most powerful nation in the world? That closeness brought rewards. It brought the Marshall plan and Polaris, after Harold Macmillan went to meet President Kennedy, and of course it still allows us access to the Trident system. Things had to be given in return; the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will remember that there was a very large American ship in the Holy Loch, and there were those who challenged that. However, it was a necessary part of our bargain.
For the United States it has been a question of choice and its wish to have a close ally in Europe as European co-operation post-war both economically and—yes—politically began to emerge. It is notable that in the 1960s President Kennedy supported Britain’s attempts at membership of the European Economic Community. To some extent, that long-standing policy was echoed by the intervention of President Obama in our debate about whether we should stay in or leave the European Union. Why was this so? It was because the United States wanted one country that could be relied on to put the American case in Europe. It is quite legitimate. It never made any secret of its motive and the truth is, to coin a phrase, we rather enjoyed being the voice of America.
What difference does Trump make to this? Ill informed or incoherent as he may be, his clear objective is to further American interests by any means possible—a kind of civilian equivalent of hybrid warfare. It may not be the language of the Ivy League or of the Washington habitué. Diplomatic or domestic conventions may easily be disregarded. This is a man with a transactional approach, with short-term rather than long-term goals.
Yes, we will continue to be important to the United States—sharing intelligence and the nuclear burden of NATO, and even perhaps in the Security Council, although recent positions taken by the United States will make that yet more difficult. None of this will arrest the pivot—not President Trump’s expression but Hillary Clinton’s, when Secretary of State—towards the Pacific. President Trump is a competitor, not a conciliator, and heaven knows there is plenty of competition to be found between China and North Korea.
We will tolerate the boorishness. We will tolerate the unpredictability out of necessity, not least when seeking a trade deal with the United States. Who believes that the offer of the President will be anything other than an attempt to secure the interests of his core support across the United States? We will inevitably lose influence with the United States, just as I believe our efforts—which may be successful—to leave the European Union mean that we will be leaving influence in Europe. This is an unhappy coincidence.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for the opportunity to reflect on the geopolitical changes that are sweeping our world and what we will face as we emerge, blinking, from our 40-year membership of the European Union into that world. I agree that there are more simultaneous crises going on now than I can remember through my career. It is striking that the Syria crisis must be the first in the Middle East since the Second World War where neither the US nor the UK has been playing a key and shaping role.
The underlying trend, which I think has already begun to come out in your Lordships’ debate, is the erosion of the international security structure that Britain was so instrumental in putting together in the late 1940s. That is partly because of the US retreat from leadership of global crisis management. It started before President Trump and has many reasons—some of them lie in that grinding and difficult 10 years of international conflict that the US and UK went through in the first decade of this century. Clearly, President Trump’s dislike of multinational organisations and his preference for transactional bilateral deals is exacerbating that trend, but there are other factors too, most obviously economic ones. There is the move of economic power towards Asia and the rise of countries with nationalist leaders impatient with the constraints of the post-war institutions who want to dominate in their region—countries such as Russia, China, Turkey and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well.
In parts of the world, I think we are returning to a period of spheres of influence, which is a very uncomfortable world for many countries. The question for us is what should Britain do in that context, as we leave the EU. For me, it means putting much more energy into an active, engaged, initiative-taking foreign policy. As one of a number of former heads of the Foreign Office here today, noble Lords would expect me to support the eloquent appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for a properly resourced Foreign Office. If global Britain is going to mean anything and if bilateral relationships with our friends and allies will have to take greater weight after Brexit, we clearly need a Foreign Office with the resources to do the job. The current balance between the money spent on international development, defence, intelligence and foreign policy seems to me to be way out of kilter.
I have two thoughts. First, we must make the most of the multilateral organisations of which we will still be a leading member. I particularly think of NATO. It is very welcome that British troops are now deployed in eastern Europe in support of our Article 5 commitment to NATO. Britain should naturally be looking to play a leading role in NATO.
But I also want to draw attention to our strategic relationship with France on the day that President Macron is here for an important summit meeting. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves that Britain and France are natural allies. We are the two European nuclear weapon powers. We have the largest defence budgets in Europe and we have Armed Forces who are trained, equipped and experienced to go out and undertake real combat in the real world. We have the two most significant defence industries in Europe. It is vital that we now put new energy back into the Lancaster House process that I played a small part in launching in 2010, both to use the capacity that we built for the two Armed Forces to work together and to drive forward defence industrial co-operation, including the potentially very important unmanned combat air system of the future. It is also time that we revisited our consultations with the French on nuclear deterrence. The factors affecting nuclear deterrence in the world, not least the emergence of a potentially nuclear-armed North Korea, make it important that the two European nuclear powers should be giving leadership in NATO on nuclear deterrence as well.
In the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, let us double down on our strategic relationship with France and let us also remember that our relationship with the United States, whatever the difficulties with the current President, remains absolutely essential in the fields of defence and intelligence, which I saw at first hand. They will continue. We need to show that we are relevant allies to the US, including in what is happening in Asia, but let us now invest seriously in our key strategic bilateral partnership.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I first refer to my entry in the register of interests as a consultant to a number of companies in the Middle East and also to my role as the Government’s trade envoy to Iran. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for introducing this debate. I agree with him on two particular points. One was the emphasis on diplomacy in tackling problems, and he may be surprised that I agree with him on the second point. In or out of the EU, on many issues we have to co-ordinate our policy with Europe, and the Government should develop a deep partnership.
I was slightly hesitant about speaking in this debate because I was worried that it would develop into an anti-Trump bandwagon. Although I share many criticisms of President Trump we have to accept and respect that he is the President of the United States, and not everything single thing that he has done has been wrong. None the less, I want to concentrate on one issue relating to the United States policy that is wrong, which is its policy towards Iran.
I was in Tehran last week with Jack Straw and Sir Peter Westmacott, our former ambassador to the United States. Naturally, we raised the cases of the dual citizens: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Mr Foroughi. We also expressed concern about the riots and what was happening there and told them the world would be watching. My view, and it has been my view for a long time, is that, with Iran, we need a policy of critical engagement. Engagement—but critical—because, although it is in many ways an authoritarian country, to my mind it is one with a capacity to change and is much more open than many of the other countries with which we are closely allied in the neighbourhood.
On the issue of riots in Tehran, there are of course many interpretations. One thing that struck me particularly while I was there was the reaction of President Rouhani. He not only defended the rights of the demonstrators to demonstrate; he went further. He said this is an opportunity for us to listen and to learn. He went even further than that and said that this is not just about economics, it is about freedom. Lastly, just the day before I left, he said that the young in his country have a completely different view of the future, and they cannot go on imposing their way of life on them. President Rouhani renewed his commitment to honour his election promises about more freedom and more economic benefit.
My view is that the best way to help those who were demonstrating and felt compelled to riot is to make sure that we make the nuclear agreement effective and give the Iranians some benefit from the agreement. President Trump has indicated that he wants to tear it up and that he thinks Iran is not complying with the agreement, despite the fact the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued 10 reports indicating that Iran is 100% compliant. His own State Department does not agree with him. I do not think the CIA agrees with him. No European Government agrees with him. None the less, he has indicated that, although he has signed the waiver on sanctions this time, in another 90 days he will not do it again. If that is to happen, it will make the agreement really ineffective. It will be extremely difficult for Europe to carry on on its own, and I would like the Minister to comment on one point.
I gather there was a meeting between Mr Zarif and EU Foreign Ministers a few days ago in which there was discussion of whether Europe could isolate itself from American sanctions by some legal mechanism, rather similar to what Mrs Thatcher did with sanctions against Libya in the 1980s and sanctions against Russia. We took action then, so could we not take action again? If America retains some sanctions it is very difficult for EU banks to make trade at all possible.
From an Iranian point of view, there is this huge feeling of betrayal. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, put the emphasis on diplomacy. Henry Kissinger once said that we want Iran to be less of a revolutionary cause and to become more of a normal state. It will only be able to do that if it actually feels that diplomacy pays and that agreements are honoured. If that agreement is simply torn up it will be the worst possible signal towards Iran. We need Iranian involvement in dealing with the crises in Yemen and in Syria, and we want the Iranians to feel that diplomacy is necessary to reaching a solution in those areas. Even after we have left the EU, I hope that the Britain’s cooperation within the EU3 will continue because such diplomacy, in co-ordination with our European partners, is extremely important. We should not simply follow the United States on this issue because on this, I am sorry to say, it is profoundly wrong.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, in an interview with the New York Times, the then presidential candidate Donald Trump—not spontaneously but prompted by his interviewer—said that his foreign policy boiled down to two words: America first. Later, he explained that this meant that his Administration would prevent other nations from taking advantage of the United States and at the start of his presidency he promised to radically reform America’s trade policy, to demand more of allies and to do less in the world. One year on and his promises, among other things, have resulted in calls to renegotiate NAFTA, to withdraw from the TPP, to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to leave the Paris climate accord.
This is all at a time when the liberal international order is under great pressure from revisionist states, there is turmoil in the Middle East, as well as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the aftershocks of the global financial crisis. It is a time when, in addition to an erratic US President, Europe faces major foreign policy challenges: a revanchist Russian President; a western Balkans rejecting the settlement reached at the end of the Yugoslav wars; a Turkish President lashing out at Greece, the Netherlands, and Bulgaria; and a destroyed Iraq and Libya and a half-destroyed Syria, all exporting refugees, including jihadists, to destabilise already fearful European communities. It is a time when every European foreign ministry has had to divert resources to produce dossiers to feed the European Commission’s Brexit negotiating process and when Brexit is dominating the UK’s political and policy agenda, already putting huge strains on the country’s Civil Service. As a result, the UK’s foreign policy capacity and attention span is and will be constrained, and its priorities will be shaped by the Brexit agenda. I fear that any UK contribution to European foreign policy after Brexit is going to be even weaker and more limited than in recent years.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate, coming less than a week after President Trump gave us and other European allies a 120-day ultimatum to come up with a new deal addressing his Iran concerns or the US will pull out of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement. His plan overtly involves bullying us and other allies into fundamentally changing the terms of a deal that we and the US know is working and which we have publicly stated we have no intention to amend. Further, we believe that keeping the JCPOA in place is the only way to make future negotiations on other Iranian activities possible at all and that a US withdrawal would undermine the transatlantic relationship and our alliances, which are mutually vital across a broad range of policies from trade to terrorism. The final words of the President’s statement showcase the challenge we face, and are worth reading and rereading:
“I hereby call on key European countries to join with the United States in fixing significant flaws in the deal … If other nations fail to act during this time, I will terminate our deal with Iran”.
And listen to this:
“Those who, for whatever reason, choose not to work with us will be siding with the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions, and against the people of Iran and the peaceful nations of the world”.
I recognise that last Thursday at a meeting in Brussels, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany and the EU High Representative, Federica Mogherini, the European signatories to the deal, insisted, having met Mr Zarif, that Iran was respecting the agreement and that it is essential for international security. At the same time, Sir Adam Thomson, director of the European Leadership Network, led a delegation of very senior non-governmental Europeans to Washington DC to engage the US Senate on the Iran nuclear deal. In his draft report, which I have seen and which will be published, he states that the delegation was,
“received and heard with courtesy and attention. They believe their weight, seriousness and arguments resonated privately with US interlocutors. Interlocutors on Capitol Hill asked the ELN to continue to feed in European arguments and material”.
Entirely coincidentally, at the invitation of the Centre for a New American Security, I, along with Ambassador Lose, the Danish ambassador to the US, spent part of last week in Salt Lake City, Utah, engaging in discussions and debates with residents of the city on various aspects of the transatlantic relationship. CNAS launched this initiative because of mounting evidence of a divergence between Washington and the rest of the US on issues of foreign policy and trade, and because survey data show that Americans and Europeans are losing sight of the value of the transatlantic relationship and what each side gains by committing itself to it.
To my astonishment, I found in Utah—a “red state” which could hardly be further from DC—an informed and interested range of audiences of all ages, receptive to the message of the value of transatlantic co-operation. There was no “America first” for these people. To me, the lesson of this snapshot, which is all I have time for in five minutes, is one of leadership and engagement. The US is correct to encourage Europe to take more responsibility for its security and destiny. My observations and experience of the last week confirm my prejudice that when we do, in solidarity, we are at our most effective. But I fear that we just do not do so enough.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I had better start by saying that I thought that that was an excellent speech and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for trying to deprive the House of it. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, on bringing this topic before us and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that the tone of the debate has been well set.
Early in March 1974, I was in the back of a limousine, returning from Foggy Bottom to the British Embassy with the new British Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, who had just had his first meeting with Henry Kissinger. I was a 31-year-old, very enthusiastic political secretary—we did not call ourselves spads in those days. I was enthusing to Mr Callaghan about just how well the meeting had gone and how well he had got on with Dr Kissinger. Mr Callaghan leaned back and said, “Tom, it is part of the job description of a British Foreign Secretary to get on with the American Secretary of State”. That is perfectly true—it is a priority that the British Foreign Secretary should have to this day, and I hope he has.
Over the last 40 years, Britain has had a unique foundation for its foreign policy as the only country with membership of the UN Security Council, NATO, the Commonwealth and the EU. These interlocking relationships have given us a unique combination of hard and soft power. We have also had, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to, the BBC World Service, an instrument of soft power underpinned by its expertise and integrity.
The idea that our departure from Europe gives us an opportunity for some new global role is fantasyland. To proffer the Commonwealth as a practical alternative to the European single market is a delusion. The Commonwealth is a tremendous example of our soft power but it is not, and never can be, an alternative trading bloc. Every Commonwealth country has its own regional trading commitments and will rank its relations with those trading commitments, and with the EU, above any bilateral trading arrangements with the UK.
Let us look forward to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the spring, but let us do so while playing to the Commonwealth’s soft power strengths. If the Government try to play the Commonwealth as some alternative to EU membership they will run into trouble, not least from Commonwealth countries themselves.
On other fronts, as we have heard, there are various thoughts about where we go next in keeping the links with the EU and possible new links with the USA. On 16 January, Tony Barber wrote an interesting article in the Financial Times, headed “Britain’s Transatlantic Bridge Looks Shaky”. In it he makes two points of great relevance to this debate. First, he draws attention to the 28-page document drawn up as the basis of Germany’s new grand coalition Government. He tells us that the document,
“said much about German co-operation with France to deepen EU and eurozone integration. It stated that US, Chinese and Russian policies obliged Europe to assume more responsibility for its future. But on Brexit, and on the UK generally, the CDU-SPD document is deafeningly silent. For all the wishful thinking in London, Brexit is not a top priority for German politicians”.
Barber’s second point is that, between 2005 and 2015, the UK ran an average annual trade surplus of over £28 billion with the United States. The US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has already made it clear that, if the UK wants a far-reaching deal, Washington expects London to depart from any close regulatory alignment with the EU. In other words, any bilateral trade deal is going to be as tough and hard-nosed as we know our American cousins can be.
This does not mean that we do not continue to build on our US relationship. A very old friend of mine—an American academic, John Reilly—in the Christmas newsletter he sends out to friends, summed it up like this, “Ours is a vast and resilient country, with a people still younger than most, a continent still richer than most, an economy more innovative than most, and an international record prouder than most”.
As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others, the tectonic plates are moving and we are going to need the kinds of foreign policy initiatives that have already been enunciated, as well as, I say again, a well-skilled and well-resourced Foreign Office. I remember Jim Callaghan saying in 1974, as we were settling in, “This is a Rolls-Royce department”. Perhaps it is time to get the Rolls-Royce off its bricks and put it back into service.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am hugely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is only a couple of weeks since my introduction, so I hope that my desire to speak is not judged impetuous. In truth, I did not want to perpetuate the frustration of not being able to contribute, nor submit to the folly of awaiting a debate on which I had a special interest or strong views, only to be bound by the protocol of remaining uncontentious. So I thought I would speak softly in this debate, at least in part then to be eligible for bolder things to come.
I start by offering a general thank you to all those who have offered me such a warm welcome to the House. Even a number of noble and gallant Lords whose very proximity in a previous life I used to fear have been remarkably friendly. I single out for special thanks my two supporters: the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Hague—both selected carefully to emphasise both my Yorkshire and my soft power credentials. I most warmly thank all those members of staff who have been so courteous and helpful.
I think I am a rarity among recent defence chiefs in having a son who is a professional comedian. Comedians know little about American foreign policy, but comedic sons are good sounding-boards for maiden speeches and common sense. Tom, my son, likened this event to a “new material night”—defined as an occasion when a non-paying, often small audience, largely composed of friends, gathers to hear you try out some new ideas, in the knowledge that they are not yet perfectly formed, nor necessarily that funny.
So here is my contribution to this debate—a contribution to an understanding of the gravity of its context from the view of a military mind. When I stood down as Chief of the Defence Staff 18 months ago, I privately offered a personal view to the staff on the state of the world. I recalled that I had spent much of my adult life rather simplistically hoping that the natural evolution of mankind was towards greater mutual tolerance, greater civilisation and a greater equality of opportunity and social condition—ultimately, a more inclusive global polity that was representative of commonly shared ideals and morality.
I had a parallel sense that this natural evolution would be accompanied by relative stability among nations: a sense that cataclysmic war, as witnessed in the last century, was a watershed in human awakening, and that our evolution towards collective civilisation would occur within an agreed international rules-based system to which all nations subscribed. My views were bolstered by ample academic evidence and bestselling books which irresistibly demonstrated that the fundamentals of human existence in respect of disease, famine and violence had never been better. There was a sustained revolution going on in human fortune. But then I qualified this euphoria. My more recent experience had rather dented my confidence in this somewhat idealised human journey. Indeed, increasingly, most of the evidence seemed to support a very different narrative.
First, as has been mentioned, a number of countries—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—variously tended to the view, perhaps understandably, that the current rules-based order denied them the historic entitlement they sensed was theirs. They were not content with the status quo, nor with the stewardship of those who control it. Separately, demographics and economics were becoming, in combination, increasingly dangerous sources of global instability, either through a rebalancing of global economic power, as in Asia, or through the continuing maldistribution of wealth and opportunity within and between countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Then there was the widespread growth in violent religious extremism, a phenomenon that threatens international security and the integrity of various nation states, most obviously Iraq, Syria and Libya. The world suddenly seemed a significantly less stable and certain—and a more dangerous—place.
As I finished my time as CDS, therefore, my historical judgment was that inevitable change, often accompanied by violence, looked a far better descriptor of mankind’s future, and my philosophical judgment was that human nature still tends to the Hobbesian: driven by selfish concerns, primarily those relating to individual survival, achieved if necessary by brutal means.
Even if these judgments seem overstated, noble Lords might at least allow the conclusion that competition is a more natural human condition than peaceful coexistence, and that stability and a rules-based global order do not occur naturally. Indeed, stability, peaceful coexistence and a rules-based order need to be imposed, primarily consensually through alliances of interested parties, and occasionally through the willingness of those parties to threaten to use, or to use, force—but always in the context of mature leadership and wise policy.
This, to me, is the context of this debate. The grand strategic challenge of this age is how we accommodate the change that is inevitable while sustaining the stability on which the continued betterment of the human condition depends. The strategy needed to meet this challenge will be achieved only through a combination of wise policy, strong capability and thoughtful leadership. The absence of such a combination—or, worse still, its replacement by policy and leadership that is antagonistic or self-serving—runs the grave risk that change will be violent, stability will fail and the journey of human betterment will suffer badly. So while we look to the United States of America to lead, the United Kingdom should also look in the mirror at our ability to discharge a supporting role.
A better definition of this role forms the context of our national ambition, our place in the world and, for me—dare I say it?—a far clearer understanding of the sort of Armed Forces we actually need. I risk, however, straying into a separate debate—one to which I hope I will now be permitted to contribute.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I am truly honoured to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who is such a welcome recruit to your Lordships’ House—on what one might call the warriors’ Bench.
I was honoured to serve as a member of his strategic advisory panel when he was Chief of the Defence Staff. I always associate the words “strategy” and “strategic” with the noble and gallant Lord. He has, in the language of quantum physics, a real gift for discerning both the waves and the particles that go into our nation’s defence posture, and the foreign policy and influence in the world that our Armed Forces support. He is, too, as we have heard, a son of Yorkshire, so we can expect an enduring and welcome injection of directness and common sense in our future deliberations. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord on a very fine maiden speech.
I will concentrate this afternoon on what one might call the hidden dimension in diplomacy, foreign policy and international affairs, by which I mean intelligence, particularly the intelligence-sharing arrangements that have served the UK so well for more than 70 years. I refer especially to the so-called “Five Eyes” network, embracing the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which the most recent report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament rightly calls “the closest intelligence partnership in the world”. It is also the most enduring, because in essence the “Five Eyes” is the World War II intelligence alliance, which has run on right through the 40 years of the Cold War and into the age of multiple threats that has followed. The UK-USA element within it, privately but not officially called the “two eyes”, is what gives our country its genuine global intelligence reach. Only two other nations possess that: the United States and Russia, with China coming up fast.
This intelligence reach is of critical value to the UK in a fragile, volatile and often scarcely readable world. For all the skills of our intelligence agencies and Defence Intelligence inside the Ministry of Defence, without the “two eyes” and the “Five Eyes” we would slip instantly into the second rank of intelligence powers.
This most special of special relationships rests on an array of agreements and one treaty—the so-called UK-USA treaty of the late 1940s. Participating nations are, however, not obliged to pass on or share intelligence that they garner. Anything that happened, on either side of the Atlantic, to staunch the flow would be a blow of considerable proportions on many levels, because we are an intelligence-trading nation as much as a diplomatic trading nation—to borrow a phrase used by my former Times colleague, Geoffrey Smith. What is of some immediate concern to the secret world is whether Brexit could impact on the skein of valuable bilateral intelligence and security arrangements we have with our European partners, to which other noble Lords have alluded.
The ISC caught this anxiety well in its report, published just before Christmas. I should point out that I have an air of regret about the ISC because we have got out of the habit of debating its annual reports in this Chamber. That is a great pity and we should restore that debate. The ISC said just before Christmas:
“Whilst none are as deep as the Five Eyes, the Agencies nonetheless have significant relationships with other countries. In particular, several areas of obvious shared intelligence interest exist with our European allies—primarily on International CounterTerrorism but also on other Hostile State Activity and Serious and Organised Crime”.
In that context, Parliament and Her Majesty’s Government should take the ISC’s concluding recommendations deeply seriously. It said:
“European mechanisms play an essential role in the UK’s national security, particularly at a time when the Agencies have all emphasised the importance of enhancing their cooperation with European counterparts. We urge the Government to be more forthcoming with its assessment of the associated risks of the UK’s impending departure from the European Union, and the mitigations it is putting in place to protect this vital capability”.
It went on to say:
“Once the UK has left the EU, intelligence cooperation is an area where it can continue to be a leader amongst its European allies”.
I say amen to that.
Such matters come perhaps into what one might call the hidden wiring capacity of our international relationships, but the value we can bring as a top-flight intelligence power, not just to ourselves but to our allies, must not go unheard amid the fractious cacophony that Brexit has brought to our politics and our national conversation. Good, carefully assessed intelligence is where hard power, soft power and so-called sharp power meet. As a country, we need it to shape our actions, our precautions and our strategy-making as much as we ever have in peacetime before.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and I will make three reflections. One is on the unpredictability of current US foreign policy; the second is to offer certain examples; and the third on what is our appropriate UK response.
In the past, there have been periods when we have been comfortable with US foreign policy and others when we have been less so. Those differences reflect in part our respective geography, history and culture. Our tradition is more elitist, that of the US led more by the democratic tradition, which was described by Alexis de Tocqueville as being subject to waves of popular emotion. Past phases of US foreign policy included the post-First World War liberal internationalism, followed by the isolationism of the 1930s and, post-Second World War, the commitment to international institutions with the Marshall plan, Bretton Woods and NATO. Then there was the harsh realism of Suez, the moralism of Carter, Reagan’s naive expansion of democracy, the crusader element of Bush—leading to the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq—and the ultra-cautious realism of Obama, which vacated the ground in the Middle East to Iran and Russia.
During those periods, however, at least US policy was predictable. Under President Trump, it is more capricious. President Zigzag has a large ego and oscillates from tweet to tweet. One of the few consistencies is the aim to overturn the Obama legacy and have “America first”. It is therefore more difficult for our Washington embassy to report accurately on the changes. Think also of the US ambassadors in Africa who have carefully built up relationships over time, only to see them demolished by the ill-considered expletives of President Trump. All this is compounded by cuts in personnel and attacks on the intelligence and diplomatic communities, but we are hardly a good example on the reduction of personnel.
The President’s idiosyncrasies have caused real problems for US ambassadors, not least the US ambassador in London, who was wrong-footed by the President’s decision—taken on spurious grounds—not to open the new US embassy here. When the President calls the press “enemies of the people”, it makes it the more difficult for the West to set an example and criticise press curbs in places such as Russia and Turkey. Equally, when he criticises the judges, it makes it more difficult for us to carry on our tradition of supporting the rule of law elsewhere in the world.
Particular areas of concern include Israel and Palestine. The orthodox view is that there can be no settlement without US involvement, but this US role has been made less possible—perhaps impossible—by the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the reduction in aid to UNRWA. The President has made childish comments about the North Korean leader such as calling him Little Rocket Man, and said, “My button is bigger than yours” and “I will destroy North Korea”. These were all to the embarrassment of our ally, South Korea, which seeks to build bridges with the north.
By reducing security aid to Pakistan, the US could well lose a key source of intelligence on terrorism. The points on Iran have already been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others. There have been similar brash utterances on climate change, Latin America, NATO and Russia.
How should we respond? Our response in respect of climate change, Iran and the Middle East has been measured and correct. We have avoided bluster but at the same time have accepted that the US is a key ally—particularly in the field of intelligence and US agencies—and have avoided divergence wherever possible, looking long. We should not seek differences with the US but should recognise that over great swathes of policy, our position is much closer to that of our EU partners. This is hardly surprising, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, would no doubt say, because of the working relationships developed over many years by diplomats and Ministers.
We will continue to bring major assets to the table: the P5 and our hard and soft power, which are relevant to our current discussions with President Macron. We will co-operate with the French on defence, building on St Malo and the Lancaster House agreements on climate change and many other policies. What shall we exchange for the French gesture on Bayeux? As a Francophile decorated by France, I counsel against offering our French colleagues the Maclise paintings in the Royal Gallery. Yes, we should avoid policy divergences with the US but, notwithstanding Brexit, we should align our policies and interests with those of our EU partners, particularly France.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, in his absence on raising this debate. I am filled with admiration for his promotion of diplomacy over bombs, which was very good to hear. That was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in his remarks on Iran.
Despite the antics of the current President of the United States, that country is our friend and ally. Especially in the light of the appalling decision to leave the European Union, we might be more and more dependent on our American cousins in the future. I wish it were not so but it is. However, there is an opportunity to do things differently following two actions by Donald Trump. I will address just two issues.
After decades of a so-called peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis, Donald Trump has chosen to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, thus recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He could not have made a more inflammatory move. By doing so, he has destroyed any illusion we might have had that the USA was acting as a neutral broker in the peace process. This has been compounded by the reduction in aid to UNRWA, which has been looking after Palestinian refugees in the Middle East since the creation of the State of Israel. The Palestinian leadership is furious; so are Muslims and Christians all over the world. It is time for our Government to take control of this situation. Together with the European Union and the Arab states, we have an opportunity to form a new neutral negotiating body not led by the USA. I remind our Foreign Office, if it needs any reminding after last year’s commemoration of the Balfour Declaration, that we—Great Britain, as we once were—are mainly responsible for this mess, and it is time we faced our responsibilities and made amends.
My other point concerns the link between foreign affairs and international development. The FCO is to receive funds from DfID in future years. It should be reacting with horror at another of Donald Trump’s announcements: the infamous Mexico City policy or global gag rule. It is why I am surprised that so few women Peers have chosen to speak in this debate. This announcement reinstated the ban on funding for all development programmes relating to safe abortion or advice about safe abortion, as under George W Bush and Ronald Reagan, but Trump has expanded the ban to the vast majority of US bilateral global health assistance programmes including those on HIV, maternal and child health, malaria, nutrition and many others, which total $8 billion-worth of funding. That ban means a delay in the reduction of maternal death rates and a halt to the spread of family planning in developing countries, which are essential if a country is to progress, which is in our interest.
Why should this concern the FCO? The connection is to be found in reports from the World Bank. A rise in GNI in developing countries occurs after a decrease in maternal mortality and declining fertility rates in those countries. The Asian-tiger countries realised some time ago that good maternal health and smaller families would release women to join their country’s workforce, hence their success, which is a great advantage to us. In recent years Rwanda, Vietnam and Tunisia have demonstrated this, and it is all good news for our country. It is therefore essential that our foreign policies and development funding should reflect this and take very seriously the changing attitude of the Administration in the United States.
I conclude by asking the Minister two questions. What plans do the Government have to recognise the state of Palestine and make it a reality instead of just a mantra they recite from time to time? With its new funding from the Department for International Development, what will the Foreign Office do to persuade the USA Administration to reverse their cruel and foolish implementation of the Mexico City policy?
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for initiating this debate. It is a privilege to speak after so many noble Lords who have unrivalled experience, knowledge and collective memory of international affairs.
Over the past year, we have witnessed a different kind of politics and leadership emanating from Washington. While it is regrettable to see an apparent weakening of American leadership in the world, it is also regrettable that so much time has been spent analysing personalities rather than politics. It is extraordinary that the cognitive tests of the President of the United States made more headlines this week than the facts that 400,000 Yemeni children are severely malnourished due to a blockade by countries we consider our allies, that nearly 1 million Rohingya refugees are stuck in a no-man’s land of statelessness and abuse, and that Russian-sponsored paramilitaries are roaming around the most unstable part of Europe, the Balkans.
I share the concerns expressed by many noble Lords regarding the unilateral decision to disregard UN Security Council resolutions on Jerusalem, the downgrading of human rights and the threat to tear up the Iranian nuclear agreement, among other current US policies, although I note that the United States’ policy on NATO has had a healthy impact on the willingness of allies to contribute more to mutual self-defence.
Whatever failings we perceive in the Administration of another country, it does not absolve us from our responsibility to put forward foreign policy ideas and initiatives of our own—as the United States Administration is undoubtedly doing, whether or not we always agree. We should be less preoccupied with the tweets and habits of the President of the United States, and more focused on our own policies and the strategies we wish to pursue with the US as a whole. I say this for everyone on this side of the Atlantic. American support and engagement, including the security guarantee through NATO, has been a crucial factor in the success and stability of Europe over the last century.
The transatlantic alliance rests on common political and economic interests, shared history, and vital military and intelligence links. It would be absurd if our history of thinking and acting together could be completely thrown off simply by the election of an unusual President. Furthermore, it would be a development welcomed with glee by our adversaries.
On this side of the Atlantic, we ought to admit that we have been distracted by our own difficulties, including but not limited to Brexit, which has contributed to an atmosphere of “each country for itself”, rather than joint thinking and common purpose. However all-consuming the demands of Brexit, we cannot put on autopilot our foreign policy responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council, and as an economy dependent on the international rule of law, while the seeds of future threats are being sown around us, whether in Syria, Iraq, Burma, Yemen, the Balkans or elsewhere.
It is deeply concerning that our undeniable talent and resources in foreign policy have been thrown into Brexit to the exclusion of almost everything else. Here, I echo the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. While we are pulling out of the EU and refocusing on trade and the Commonwealth, the world has not stopped to wait for us to rearrange the chairs.
We urgently need to see fresh thinking and bold initiatives with the United States and our allies to revive viable and credible peace negotiations in Syria, to hold the Burmese authorities to account for ethnic cleansing and alleged genocide, and to muster a serious collective effort to roll back Russian undermining and interference in some forgotten parts of Europe, notably in the Balkans.
It cannot be that we have regressed so far that there is now talk again of spheres of influence, rather than democratic rights, the rule of law and universal freedoms. Anyone who has practised foreign policy knows that we are most effective when we act jointly with the United States and with Europe.
I am not romanticising this relationship, but anyone who says that the transatlantic alliance built over the last century is not something we have to build on, strengthen and be able to rely on at a time of growing danger internationally, simply because of a different type of presidency in Washington, is missing the bigger picture.
We have never lived in a more interconnected world; yet, I have never felt that democracies were more parochial than they are today. We need to rediscover our sense of unity and purpose and confidence, based on our values, and cannot ever simply accept that America is disengaged. The last time America was disengaged was in the Second World War—and then, we waited too long. We should never observe that trend without doing everything in our power to reverse it.
I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with President Trump and I encourage her to pursue it further, looking beyond trade agreements to transatlantic security as a whole and the robust defence of the liberal order that we in Europe built with the United States—which is an indispensable today as it ever has been.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, that was a courageous and forthright speech.
I declare my interests as a member of the advisory panel of the United Nations Association. Like others, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, most warmly for having secured this debate and for the challenging way in which he spoke.
The first reality of existence is that we live in a totally interdependent world. Individually and as a nation, we shall be judged by posterity on our success or failure in meeting that reality, and on the constructive and imaginative part we play in forging the co-operative international remedies and actions that are essential to ensure the survival and well-being of the human race. Forbidding as things may already seem under Trump, the true humanitarian and security costs of his actions will become ever clearer in future. Coming so soon after his precipitate and dangerous action over Jerusalem, this week’s news that the Trump Administration are to cut from US$350 million to US$60 million their contributions to the work of UNWRA is a glaring example. Unless immediate steps are taken to make good the void, quite apart from the grave humanitarian consequences for schools, medical clinics, food and income programmes, the negative impact on stability and security will, sadly, prove significant.
While in the European context we should be promoting our commitment to NATO and to the Council of Europe, and indeed taking seriously the work of the Ministers of the Council of Europe, it is globally that we have to redouble our efforts. We must see the UN as our UN, not as something separate from us. Particularly as we are a permanent member of the Security Council, the UN’s successes or failures are inescapably ours and the responsibility for putting right shortcomings is very much our responsibility. The same is true of the UN family and specialised agencies. We simply must forgo the temptation to cherry-pick our favourite bits of multilateralism. We have to play a full, effective and, where necessary, critical part in the system as a whole. That demands a principled, multilateral and consistent foreign policy. It is greatly to our credit as a nation that, thanks to what is enshrined in our legislation, we are world leaders in overseas aid and development. However, the influence we gain by that is considerably negated by, for example, putting trade before human rights, as happens with Saudi Arabia, with dire consequences in Yemen. Similarly, when we shirk from playing a committed part in discussions on nuclear disarmament—condescendingly, at times—that undermines our credibility.
There is a central role to be shouldered by UK diplomacy—I am glad that this has been repeatedly emphasised during the debate—and by the British Council, the BBC and others if we are to sustain and enhance our influence on the world stage. Given the scale of the need, deprivation, suffering and injustice that remain across the world, our overseas aid programme must at all costs remain a priority. However, that must be alongside increased funding for the FCO itself, with the emphasis on multilateralism and operations that support work at the UN level. Hopefully, the new drive for multilateralism will help to justify what I believe is our otherwise questionable permanent membership of the UN Security Council. It will also gain us a part in building a broad and diverse set of alliances to replace the old order.
The list of actions is challenging, but the opportunities are huge.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashdown for initiating this debate, even though I sometimes do not share his historical analogies or gloomy prognosis of what is to come.
The US role in securing the liberal international order that the world has enjoyed over the last 70 years is changing—there is no doubt about that—but it has been changing since the more stable certainties of the Cold War fell away. It is giving rise to a set of new and complex global issues. Since the early 1990s we have seen a unipolar moment but at the same time we have seen enormous disruption in what we thought were certainties: the rise of climate change, the rise of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In preparing for this debate, I was fortunate enough to realise that Chatham House is wonderful. It is a UK institution that we really must cherish and which has an extraordinary reputation around the world. If I recall correctly, my noble friend Lord Ashdown is himself an honorary president of the institution. It kicked off 2018 by producing a special edition of its journal, International Affairs, on the future of the liberal international world order. This is a very important moment to help us reflect on the changes I have described. In the leading article in the journal, Professor John Ikenberry from Princeton, who I know my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire also knows, makes a few central points that I think worth repeating. He says that preserving the liberal international order in the face of globalisation is a,
“problem of authority and governance”.
That is what we have seen with the rise of populism and authoritarianism.
The central question therefore becomes: who pays, who adjusts and leads? How do you redistribute authority? It is a matter of managing change as power and authority shift from the West, the EU and Japan to rising powers such as China and India. My money is still very much on the United States and, broadly, with the West. Indeed, even through the Trump presidency, despite the reservations that several noble Lords have voiced today, I would argue that there are more continuities than disruptions. The US economy has not tanked as predicted; indeed, the EU and UK can look with envy at a growth rate of nearly 3% and unemployment at just above 4%. NAFTA has not been scrapped; it has been renegotiated, but then again we only wish that our own renegotiation had gone better. The checks and balances that are hard-wired into the US system and constitution are bigger than the incumbent of the White House, including when it comes to nuclear stand-offs. Lastly, even on the question of climate change, my greatest concern is the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement but that will be implemented only after the next presidential election, so who knows? There might be a change of view in that regard.
The UK’s own changing relations must embrace both continuity and change. Continuity comes from remaining a steadfast partner to both the US and the EU, including making the right calls when confronted with divergences in international affairs—for example, over Iran, which has been widely mentioned across the House. However, we must also change in recognising that, as we sit among our allies as defenders of the liberal international order based on multilateralism and a rules-based system, our values matter more than ever. The defence of freedom, human rights and democracy in the face of the rise of authoritarianism across the world makes defending and standing up for our ideas and values even more important, even though there appear to be temporary reverses.
The West has experienced many crises of confidence in the last 70 years. Think of the Cuban missile crisis, the nuclear stand-offs in Asia between India and Pakistan, and 9/11 and the war on terrorism. No doubt the disruptions will continue to challenge us, even as we come up to the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on his role in supporting the UN system. Even as we come up to this period, it is important that we keep our nerve. The power of our values and ideals still trumps all the other ideologies out there. People around the world can see that, which is why they still gravitate to western culture, western economic models and, most importantly, western democracy and freedom.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, if we look at the Middle East, it seems full of conflict and unpredictability; much the same could be said of American foreign policy, particularly in that region. I would therefore like to describe a new and positive initiative.
Since 2014, the Finnish Government and the British charity Forward Thinking have developed the Helsinki Policy Forum. I declare an unpaid interest as a trustee of the charity. The forum is so called because it first met in Helsinki, and it aims to increase dialogue between key powers so as to develop shared analysis, with the help of participants from the UN and international bodies, together with leaders in business and NGOs. It is well aware of the influence of religions in that region.
The forum tries to ease tensions and prevent conflicts and to identify policy proposals that can be implemented in practice. In three years, 95 such recommendations have been made, and I am glad to say that a large majority have been taken up by Governments, parliaments, think tanks and the media. The aim is to find win-win approaches that serve the common good, so that all may benefit. A meeting on Syria, for example, included Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The ability to call together high-level officials from major states stems at least in part from 13 years of painstaking and patient work by Forward Thinking with the political and religious extremes in both Israel and Palestine.
In the absence of formal institutions for preventing and resolving conflicts, the forum works in three ways. First, it raises awareness, to alert and prevent; secondly, it builds confidence through face-to-face meetings, to address a widespread lack of trust in the region; above all, it seeks to highlight mutual and wider common interests—a small example of the latter was the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia for Iranian pilgrims to take part in the 2017 hajj.
Between larger meetings, the forum holds working groups on single issues such as economic co-operation or migration. It is always in close touch with foreign policy groups in Berlin, Rome and Istanbul, as well as the Davos World Economic Forum. I commend the Helsinki Policy Forum to our Government, and indeed to your Lordships, and to all who want to see a more co-operative and peaceful Middle East. What has been done shows once again the value of neutral ground and independent facilitation. As Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our senior adviser, wrote in Forward Thinking’s recent annual report, in the context of international relations and interests the Middle East is the canary in the mine.
I conclude with two probably controversial questions, for which I take full personal responsibility. Will Her Majesty’s Government move from condemnation to a better understanding of the history and current evolution of national resistance movements such as Hamas and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party? Will they make plans for dismantling sanctions on Syria, given that those probably do more harm to the Syrians than to the current regime? I do not want to provoke the Foreign Office, but I will just say that these questions arise from my many visits to Israel and Palestine, including Gaza, and also to Turkey, Iraq and Syria.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for securing this important debate today. I also congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, on an excellent maiden speech. When I was chancellor of Bournemouth University, I had the pleasure of conferring on the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, an honorary doctorate, and I still remember the inspiring way he spoke that day.
I declare my interests, in that I am married to an American, and my children are British and American. I am also an honorary colonel in the United States army, am honoured to have been given the freedom of a number of American cities, and have enjoyed lecturing at various American universities.
The “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and America was first coined by Sir Winston Churchill in a speech in 1946. Our two nations share a strong common heritage. My wife’s ancestors John and Priscilla Alden were pilgrims on board that famous ship the “Mayflower”, which made the voyage from Plymouth to the new world of America in 1620, nearly 400 years ago.
Although we share the English language, cultural differences between America and Britain manifest themselves from time to time. To my wife Laura, cricket means an insect she used to hear during the night in her home town of Dallas, Texas, whereas to me cricket is a fine summer game, played occasionally in between frequent showers of rain. These are but small differences between our two cultures.
More importantly, when we travel to America it is clear that the British brand—for example, British royalty, our literature and our history—remains very strong there. These bonds are stronger than whoever happens to be President in the White House, and they will endure even beyond temporary differences in foreign policy. I recently had the privilege of being interviewed by Fox News TV about Brexit, and it was clear to me from the questions that America is listening to and watching what is going on in Britain. I am delighted, too, to have been invited to President Trump’s forthcoming prayer breakfast in Washington DC. It will be just me and the President of the United States of America—oh, and 3,000 other guests.
When it comes to foreign policy, historically the actions of the United States have had a profound effect on the rest of the world. When Donald Trump became President, he made it clear that he was going to focus more on greatness at home. We could criticise him for that, but in essence that is what Brexit is about—giving Britain the opportunity to become not just Great Britain but greater Great Britain. Let us not forget that one of Mr Trump’s earliest actions on entering the White House was to restore the bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the Oval Office. That was an important signal of the US President’s bond with, and respect for, Great Britain.
Concerning foreign policy, let us consider briefly the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Israel. American Presidents have endeavoured to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, but that has led to a stalemate situation, where the peace process has become stagnant for some years. On 6 December last year, Mr Trump recognised Jerusalem as the Jewish capital of Israel and announced the intention to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This decision also affirmed the biblical foundation for that city being the capital of Israel, and Israel being the true home of the Jewish people. This was of course confirmed by the British Government 100 years ago, with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Mr Trump has declared his support for Israel, and it is important for the United Kingdom to continue supporting Israel and world peace, as Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East.
The Holy Bible says, in Matthew chapter 5 verse 9:
“Blessed are the peacemakers”—
not peacekeepers but peacemakers; it is very much an active thing. To achieve peace, it is important to recognise that there are agents of peace which world leaders can by their policies halt, misuse or use to not only benefit their own people but help to create peace. In Israel, a distinct agent of peace is innovation. Israel has a small population yet ranks third in the World Economic Forum’s rankings of the most innovative economies. The world has benefited from Israeli inventions too numerous to mention here. Israeli intelligence services have helped stop a wide number of terrorist attacks around the world. Many Arab nations now look to Israel as a strong ally in their common battle for peace against militant Islam. These Arab nations now seek Israeli technology to help grow their own economies, so trade can be an agent of peace.
The UK has 28 trade envoys but only five Trade Ministers. Trade is an agent of peace. Will the Minister say when the Government intend to appoint more trade envoys? There are 282 foreign embassies. Is it not time for the UK to host a peace conference inviting ambassadors to talk about making peace?
In conclusion, the first duty of any Government is to protect their people, but we live in a world where geographical boundaries will mean less and less. Perhaps one should remember that there is only one race—the human race. This is why President Thomas Jefferson was right when he said simply:
“Enemies in War, in Peace Friends”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, at a time of momentous change on both sides of the Atlantic, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, has done us all a great service by initiating this debate.
In 1946, Churchill coined the phrase, “special relationship”. In cautioning against anti-Americanism throughout the debate, we have rightly cited the Marshall aid programme and NATO. We could add to that the Truman doctrine and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which Eleanor Roosevelt played such a decisive role, all of which were indispensable in opposing totalitarianism, championing democracy and safeguarding peace and the rule of law. In sustaining these achievements and in our mutually advantageous relationship, we need far more wisdom and self-restraint, nowhere more so than in North Korea, where 3 million lives, including those of British and American servicemen, were lost in the Korean War of 1950 to 1953. I declare an interest as founder, 15 years ago, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, which I continue to co-chair.
With six nuclear tests last year alone, North Korea continues to act in defiance of Security Council resolutions. It is said to possess 5,000 tonnes of chemical and biological agents and 1,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul alone. We have seen what it can do with abductions and assassinations, let alone cyberattacks, the hacking of crypto-currencies and cyber robberies, which can directly impact the United Kingdom. Sanctions, implemented by China and to a lesser extent Russia, are having some welcome effect. Although the law of unintended consequences may yet lead to a catastrophic war, there has been some welcome movement in Pyongyang, from the Winter Olympics, and maybe a shared flag, to the reopening of eight formal lines of communication between north and south. However, as that regime strives to survive, Pyongyang will be duplicitous and try to drive wedges between the United States and its allies and encourage anti-American sentiment.
The north’s calibrated strategy will aim at securing relief from sanctions, but they are past masters of offering concessions that are never honoured. We should recall that, between 2005 and 2009, the US unfroze $25 million of a North Korean fund at Banco Delta Asia, which the regime then used as a slush fund. We must beware of being what Lenin called “useful idiots” in the hands of a well-practised and often cunning snake oil salesman.
We should stay close to the United States and work together, as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did so effectively during the Cold War and the Helsinki process. Along with sanctions and diplomacy and military deployment—including, last week, three stealth B-2 Spirit bombers to Guam and HMS “Sutherland” and HMS “Argyll” to the Asia Pacific—we must never lose sight of breaking North Korea’s information blockade and the championing of both people’s human rights.
Four years ago, a United Nations commission of inquiry concluded that the,
“gravity, scale and nature”,
of the human rights violations in North Korea,
“reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.
Its chairman, Justice Michael Kirby, said:
“This Commission’s recommendations should not sit on the shelf … It is now your duty to address the scourge of human rights violations and crimes against humanity”.
However, while the report’s recommendations gather dust, 200,000 people remain incarcerated in the regime’s gulags, where more than 300,000 people have been killed. The regime rapes, tortures, indoctrinates and lets millions of its people starve to death. Like Stalin, Kim Jong-un uses mock trials, purges and public executions.
Consider the plight of North Korean refugees. Just two months ago, 10 North Koreans, including women and a four year-old child, were repatriated to North Korea from China, despite South Korea’s willingness to give them refuge and citizenship. The father of one of the children, who had reached South Korea, issued an appeal broadcast by the BBC. He said that his wife and son would,
“either face execution or wither away in a political prison camp”,
if sent back to North Korea. He said that he was haunted by images of his young son in detention:
“I can almost hear my baby calling my name”.
I was genuinely shocked to receive a parliamentary reply about this case, in which the Government confirmed that they had not made representations to China on behalf of those fleeing refugees.
We should not remain silent about the nature of this regime—we should act whenever we can—nor should we impute in some foolish way a moral equivalence between North Korea and the United States of America. In the Cold War, once destruction was mutually assured and we realised that weapons used by either side would lead to obliteration, other weapons proved more effective; we should deploy them all. The Helsinki process opened eyes and minds to systematic injustices. As walls fell, this ushered in an era of extraordinary change. It remains the historic role of our two nations to challenge and help change even the most nightmarish and oppressive of regimes.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown.
The virtually universal view of President Trump—at least around this Chamber and outside it—is that he is unbelievably inept at best and a malign force at worst. Internationally, he has finished up being the most reviled President for very many years. He campaigned on a platform of isolationism and protectionism mixed with a dose of racism, in order, he said, “to make America great again”. However, all he has succeeded in doing is leaving my American friends and relations wringing their hands in despair over his domestic policies, and he has brought America’s standing in the world to the lowest level for very many years. However, considerable dangers follow hard on the heels of those views of the man and the opinions that are now projected on to American values as a whole. Despite its President, America remains the dominant voice of western democracy, whatever Trump says or does.
At a time when there are huge dangers lurking around the world—as many have spoken about—when a Russia led by a predatory Putin is patrolling our skies and seas, intent on expanding his influence, when Chinese versions of civil liberties are inflicted on millions of their citizens, when a nuclear North Korea is making all sorts of warlike noises, when Iran, with its sponsorship of terrorism and untrammelled ballistic missile programme, is so unstable and the whole of the Middle East is in turmoil—when all this going on, we in the UK need to think very carefully indeed about jettisoning America and what it stands for when we and the rest of the democratic world need it most. We should especially think about that carefully when, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, emphasised, we need to share intelligence. When America itself needs support, we should be careful how we react to its President’s outbursts. As we think of our long-term, post-Brexit trade needs, it is worth remembering that at worst he will be there only for eight years, and at best for four years, or maybe less.
However, there is one of Trump’s recent interventions on which I would like to focus—his proposal to move his embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. On this issue I am afraid that I must part company with one or two earlier speakers. It certainly has been the focus of many knee-jerk responses in the media but, surprisingly, with rather less dismay in the Middle East. Even the Palestinian response was muted, when it became obvious that protesters at the Damascus Gate were outnumbered by the TV and media reporters standing around. Provocative it was, but was it a profound change of policy given the facts of the case? First, it is worth remembering that west Jerusalem is where the Israeli Parliament and all its government departments are sited, together with its Supreme Court. It is faintly ridiculous to see ambassadors and their staff spending hours travelling from their embassies in Tel Aviv along the motorway to Jerusalem every day. The population of west Jerusalem is 95% Jewish and it is only in west Jerusalem that Trump is suggesting his embassy should be based.
East Jerusalem, on the other hand, is Arab by a large majority, and the Arab-Palestinian population there is growing. There is no way that Trump has proposed that the American embassy to Israel might be placed there. Now that would really be provocative. Indeed, he said in the same speech that the division between east and west Jerusalem would be entirely a matter for the two sides to agree between themselves. That was the second part of his speech, which was largely ignored. No matter that some Palestinians and Israelis speak of Jerusalem being their undivided capital, I cannot believe that any sensible person thinks that Israel will hand over western Jewish Jerusalem, with all its machinery of government, to Palestinian control, nor that it is to Israel’s advantage, in any way, to hang on to largely Palestinian east Jerusalem.
In truth, the battle is not about east and west Jerusalem and their burgeoning populations. It is about the Old City and specifically the Holy Basin, where the al-Aqsa mosque, so precious for the Muslims, and the Western Wall, so significant for the Jews, are sited. That is where the focus of all the most vital interests in Jerusalem lie and where there is so much mutual suspicion. President Trump did not say or imply anything about this most contentious of all the issues on Jerusalem. Resolution of who controls the Holy Basin has to await another day, perhaps another generation.
Moving an embassy to Jewish west Jerusalem seems to me rather less contentious. It recognises where Israel has placed its centre of government and does not preclude any negotiation between the two sides on what might happen to the rest of Jerusalem. This may be one of the few outpourings from President Trump with which I feel some agreement.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. His debate has already illuminated what is a very confusing, if not threatening, picture to all of us. The President has yet to address important questions of foreign policy, because almost everything he says seems to be designed for internal purposes—not, apparently, for the good of the world outside. The State Department is left wondering what its job is: morale is low, people have resigned, humanitarian budgets are squeezed, and the Secretary of State seems flummoxed by conflicting instructions. It is therefore hard to examine a US non-foreign policy unless one makes a few suppositions.
I am going to focus on the western Balkans today, since our International Relations Committee has just published a report on the Balkans. The committee also had the benefit of the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, based on his considerable experience in the region. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and his colleagues must be thanked for bringing the Balkans back on to the agenda in a timely fashion, while the Government are preparing to hold a Balkans summit. I have frequently asked the Government whether EU enlargement is still on the table, and the answer “Yes” is sounding a little half-hearted. Rather surprisingly, the Select Committee took no evidence from the USA and made little reference to its foreign policy. I conclude that, with such a maverick President, few people can claim to understand US foreign policy in Iran, Jerusalem or anywhere else, let alone the western Balkans.
However, one can piece together a few facts, especially relating to NATO, which traditionally is aligned with the views of the US. NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg made a strong stand on Georgia last year, demanding that Russia remove its troops from the two breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The US must have been behind this initiative. On the other hand, as General Rose pointed out to the committee, there is a lot of interest in eastern Europe in co-operating with NATO. Even Serbia, he says, has held as many as 22 military exercises with NATO in the past year.
We have to understand that, from the Russian point of view, it is NATO and the west that are hostile to them and trying to push back the frontiers through hard and soft power. My new noble and gallant friend Lord Houghton touched on this. While President Putin claims to be a Slavophile, looking to Asia rather than Europe, Russia has been leaning in both directions at least since the time of Peter the Great. The Select Committee concluded that, despite Russia’s resentment, the peace and stability of the Balkans could be enhanced by further NATO co-operation and specifically by support for the proposed membership of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia. It is unthinkable that this does not reflect the policy of the new US Administration. This is in some contrast to the apparent lack of enthusiasm within the EU for the accession of new members, stemming from President Juncker’s comments in 2014. Some witnesses to the committee felt that the EU was watering down the Copenhagen principles of democracy and the rule of law.
I would finally like to mention Kosovo, which I visited twice with the IPU. I declare an interest, in that I am proud to have a Kosovan-Albanian son-in-law. Kosovo is another example of a state in which we invested a lot of political, as well as military, capital since the war of 1998-99. It is only half a country, while four EU countries refuse to recognise it and Serbs virtually rule the north with Russian approval. The murder of a leading Serb politician in Mitrovica this week was another sign of insecurity there. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has already mentioned roaming paramilitaries, and there is corruption. Kosovo suffers from high unemployment and emigration, and it will depend on foreign aid for years to come. The US is definitely committed to Kosovo and KFOR, and I believe that we too have a moral commitment to support its EU application, alongside Serbia’s, and ensure that the US does as well.
Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic states are on the front line of the new Cold War. In the case of eastern Ukraine, this is an active war in Europe, in which thousands have died and are still dying. You have to believe that, whatever the chaos in the White House, the US Administration is following this scene closely through NATO and its generals on the ground and yet, to judge from recent evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, NATO is way behind Russia in its preparedness for conventional warfare. We also have to assume that, while we remain in the EU, the US is behind us in supporting democracy and the rule of law in eastern Europe.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate instituted very well by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, to whom we are all grateful. As one or two others have done and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, just did, I want to concentrate on a decision that throws light on the activities of the United States. That is the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
My interest, as I have outlined before, is that my wife was the third generation of her family to be born in Jerusalem, having gone there for Christian reasons in Ottoman times. The family still has interests and friends on all sides of the religions and confessions there. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, pointed out that over that period we British failed to protect the existing inhabitants of Palestine as Balfour’s letter promised. We also failed to prepare Palestine for independence, as we were required to do under the mandate. Now we find ourselves facing problems there again.
It interested me that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, made such a clear distinction between east and west Jerusalem and suggested that east Jerusalem, in spite of the statement by the President the other day, might indeed be the capital of Palestine. He is right to concentrate on the Old City as the focal point. Every effort to settle the problems of these two countries by partition, from the Peel commission in 1937 to UN resolutions over the years, has recognised the inescapable fact that the status of Jerusalem needs to reflect its importance to Jews, Muslims and Christians if peace is to be secured and to last. Of course, it would be easier to be consoled by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, if one did not also know of the tremendous pressure put on the residents of east Jerusalem by the Israelis through residence restrictions, movement restrictions all the time, building restrictions and the building of settlements in east Jerusalem, which has been going on ruthlessly for many years and which continues to this day.
It is significant, particularly in the context of this debate, that we and other western democracies have not followed the United States in this initiative. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, hoped that, in the United States, democracy might help to curb the excesses of Donald Trump, and we all hope that. However, we the allies of America also have a duty in this respect not necessarily to follow all his policies over the years and to lean out of the boat in the other direction.
The damage that was done by the statement on Jerusalem was, first, a blow to the United Nations and its resolutions and the rules-based order that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to in his excellent maiden speech, as did other noble Lords. The statement is also a blow to the idea that America might be a broker between Israel and Palestine, as previous US Presidents have done their best to be. I am particularly sad about that because for a brief period last year, when American policies seemed to be developing, particularly in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and so on, it seemed that the great dealmaker, as he is said to be—at least by himself—might open up new possibilities of reconciling this stubborn problem. I fear that has become much less likely and less possible.
In the face of US policy, we in this country, with our other allies in Europe and elsewhere, need to redouble our efforts to try to bring peace in Israel/Palestine but also in other parts of the world, not just sit back and bemoan what is happening. Of course, many Israelis and Palestinians want to get on with one another. Those are the people we should help, while doing our best to marginalise the zealots on both sides of this terrible divide.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, I always look forward to these debates because I learn so much from the contributions made, from experience, across the House—particularly today from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, who made an interesting speech containing some interesting concepts, which will bear rereading.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for introducing this debate in the way he did. I do not share his slightly doom-and-gloom approach. I recognise his attempt to use the historical perspective of the 1930s, but I would have thought that pre-1914 is more relevant. One great power, the United Kingdom, was in relative decline, and now another, the United States, is in relative decline—the emphasis being on relative not absolute decline, which are two very different concepts. But I accept that the position is changing. Of course, there is also our own decision to leave the European Union.
None of these things will necessarily mean that there will not be great collaboration between the key western democracies and countries. Following the Brexit referendum, we must stay close to Europe and get closer on defence and foreign policy. In my judgment—indeed, this is said within the European Union at the moment—there will be greater co-ordination of defence and foreign policy in the EU. The United Kingdom ought to support that. We have to work in tandem with that, and our relationship with both the EU and the US will be—to use that hackneyed term—a special relationship: it has to be really close. We must acknowledge that the United States will, in due course, have to relate more directly to the European Union and less via the United Kingdom. That is one of the political consequences of leaving the EU. It is not necessarily totally disastrous. Although we should have stayed, and I voted to stay, I do not take the view that we cannot make this work, as long as we see our relationship with the European Union as being a close one.
I also emphasise what has been my view for some time: that the European Union is at best two-speed and maybe even three-speed in its approach to emerging economic and political integration. Some countries in Europe will head ever closer towards economic union and the political union that necessarily goes with that—if you have closer economic union, you inevitably develop a political union—and we will be slightly outside that, in the second or third tier of that process. That is not necessarily a disaster. It is not the best place to be in, but we can make that work if we recognise that we have to be very close and have a good working relationship politically and on the economy, defence and foreign policy. That is why I share my noble friend Lord Robertson’s view that we have to put the Foreign Office at the forefront of our activities. We must also consider our soft power in all its aspects, including our help to developing countries, which my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned. All those things will continue to be part of Britain’s influence. But our language, culture and history make it clear that relationships with the EU and the US will not necessarily diminish. The relationship between the UK and the US is not all about the President and the Prime Minister; it is about the incredible, multilayered British and American contacts—family, business, politics, academia, science and technology—that keep us close. That has to be a key part of this.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on Iran was important and good. We need to focus more on the role of Islam. In my lifetime we got used to a political ideology dominating the world—communism, capitalism, Nazism, fascism, and so on. That has gone and is being replaced by a religious ideology, and, frankly, that has been the history of the world for several thousand years.
The disputes in Iran and the riots in the streets are in part about the problem Iran has in marrying political control—President Rouhani is struggling but he is trying to do a good job—with religion: according to both Shia and Sunni interpretations, there is no law above God’s law. Time precludes any further examination of that issue but we have to focus on it in the coming decades.
Finally, we also have to be aware of the role of nationalism, which I am afraid is growing in many countries in the world. That, combined with the growth of ideology, is a danger we have to face.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, in which I have the unusual pleasure of agreeing with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick.
I will make two quick points. First, this is a brilliantly timed debate, one year after the inauguration. I am less worried than I was then about the threat to NATO. The investigations into possible collusion and certain Russian involvement in the election campaign in America have neutralised what I saw as the biggest risk to NATO: candidate Trump’s openly avowed admiration for President Putin. If that is still in his head he cannot act on it, given the investigations taking place on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington, so I am slightly less worried about that.
One point that perhaps was not brought out in the debate, and about which I am more worried about than I was a year ago, is the threat to the rules-based trade system. The open insistence that the United States will no longer be bound by WTO rulings, and the attempt to subvert the WTO system from within by refusing to make appointments to panels—refusing to appoint judges in the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures—is an existential threat to a central element of a rules-based system that originated here in London. We invented the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The WTO was run for a very long time on British expertise. When we joined the European Union we imported the old Board of Trade expertise into it and we saw great commissioners such as Leon Brittan and Peter Sutherland. We should pay tribute to Peter Sutherland for all his work, not just in Brussels but also in Geneva, in all our interests.
It is very important if we are to leave the European Union that we remain in very close touch with it in support of the WTO system. To my mind, a sweetheart trade deal with the United States is a mirage. It clearly has an “America first” policy. We remember the inaugural speech. We must not let pursuit of close contacts with America, which are very important, blind us to the fact that the rules-based system is particularly important to an open trading country such as the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and constructive debate with remarkable consensus across the House. Almost everyone agrees with what the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Robertson, said about Iran, for example. I hope it does not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we are very much of one view on that.
There are three interconnected themes: first, the changes in the United States and the impact of President Trump; secondly, how we maintain the threatened liberal international order; and thirdly, the implications for British foreign policy. On the United States, I think most of us agree that the changes to which we have to adjust are longer term than President Trump and that Trump highlights and, we hope, exaggerates some of the underlying trends.
When I first went to the United States in 1962, I began to learn that the Atlantic community was between the east coast of the United States and Britain and western Europe. In those days Texas was not so important; Massachusetts and Pennsylvania mattered much more. Now, California, Texas and Florida are fundamental to American foreign policy and Asian-Americans and Latin-Americans are as important as the old, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants were. The discontented white Anglo-Saxon Protestants form part of Trump’s core vote.
The special relationship is a great deal less special than it was. I remember in 1967 taking my then-girlfriend, now wife, around Washington with her list of people who had worked with her parents in the war. They all turned out to be senior people either in intelligence agencies or the State Department. For that American generation, that was part of their formation. They had spent four years in European war. That has gone. People in the United States are much more likely now to have travelled somewhere else. They do not instinctively look to Europe. Our consensus, however, is that in spite of President Trump and all these trends, the United States remains the indispensable power for a liberal international order and we need to maintain our governmental and political exchanges with the United States in spite of the blizzard of dreadful Twitter messages.
On a liberal international order, I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, on his maiden speech and the number of very insightful things that he said such as,
“stability and a rule-based global order do not occur naturally”.
We have to fight for them. We have to keep them going. We have to have an active foreign policy with others to maintain it against all the efforts of authoritarian states to undermine it. He also said that a liberal international order has to be a more inclusive world community.
When I hear US Republicans talking about the importance of Winston Churchill, I remember that the Atlantic charter, the basis for a liberal international order, was mainly written by Roosevelt and his assistants and signed by Churchill. US Republicans have scrubbed Roosevelt completely out of the picture. They like Churchill as a great world leader but want to shunt Roosevelt off because he believed that welfare and freedom from want—other dimensions of democracy—were equally important.
It is important that we remember that because globalisation, as we have discovered in the past 30 years, spreads inequality into our countries and therefore fuels populism. I remember reading an excellent book by the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, in which he says that globalisation may not be compatible in the long run with democracy and, if we have to choose, we have to choose democracy.
That is a matter for another debate but it raises some very awkward questions for those such as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who are quite fond of a network world. When many of those who use the network come from corrupt and authoritarian regimes and launder their money through London and elsewhere, it is not easy for us to maintain our liberal values, let alone spread them further out.
Then we come to the implications for British foreign policy. I feel a degree of underlying uncertainty as to what British foreign policy is. In his best diplomatic way, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, suggested that he was not entirely sure what “global Britain” means. That confusion is shared by all of us. It is rather like “deep and special” and “strong and stable”. It is a very convenient phrase to use when you do not want to explain what you mean, and that is part of the problem with British foreign policy today.
The underlying concern was expressed strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. He mentioned the,
“savage amputation of our international diplomatic capacity”,
cutbacks in the Foreign Office, our embassies and the Diplomatic Service, and a loss of direction in our foreign policy as such.
Winston Churchill, after all, defined British foreign policy as being based on three circles—the transatlantic, the European and the Commonwealth. We are presently disengaging from the European circle, without yet any information from the Government as to how we will maintain that relationship after we leave the European Union. We operate our diplomacy through 40 working groups underneath European common foreign and security policy. I am told that during the Arab spring the Political and Security Committee, in which we take a major part in Brussels, met almost daily for several weeks and the number of Foreign Ministers’ Councils was sharply raised.
I am also told that the British and the Germans are the ones who most regularly send diplomatic messages round within the European Union. We will cut ourselves out of that unless we come to some other arrangement. The Government have so far said nothing on that, except that we had a position paper last September which in detail told us how much we had gained in foreign policy and defence co-operation over the last 30 years precisely from this co-operation with our European partners. On the importance of British-French defence co-operation, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, that when I was in the coalition Government, I was well aware that Liam Fox was making active efforts to ensure that as few people as possible knew how important Franco-British defence co-operation was. That was not very helpful and part of the problem that we face. There is a gap between public understanding and the analysis of where we are.
For the past 40 years, we have worked through all that. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, remarked on the importance of EU3 on Iran. It was extremely effective, together with the high representative—the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton—and it is not clear how we will maintain that either. We will not meet our opposite numbers as easily, regularly and naturally as before, so we will have to find some new arrangement that is so far undefined.
The day before yesterday, a number of noble Lords complained that they had not understood that Europe was a political project. Of course it was a political project. It came out of the last major war. It was a project to provide European security and—as Mrs Thatcher used to say, including in her Bruges speech—to extend democracy. We have extended it successfully across eastern Europe.
The uncertainties of British foreign policy should concern us all. I listened to Boris Johnson’s speech in Chatham House in December 2016 in which he announced that it was the first of a series of speeches that he would make on the redefinition of the strategy of British foreign policy. I have searched several times since then—I asked the Library to assist me—to discover which speeches he had since made on the strategy of British foreign policy. I regret to tell the Minister that I have been unable to discover them, and so has the Library. Perhaps he could help me and even provide a list of those speeches for other noble Lords who have contributed to these debates.
The consensus across the House about British foreign policy seems to be entirely clear. The United States remains important. France, Germany and other European actors are also vital. The Commonwealth is an asset, although we should not overplay what sort of an asset the Commonwealth is. But we do not quite know what the Government think on all this, least of all how they will maintain the European circle alongside the American circle after we leave the European Union.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, for initiating this debate, which has been wide ranging and important. One of the good things about House of Lords debates on subjects such as this are that we are not confined. We hear from a wide range of expertise on a number of subjects. I particularly welcome the excellent maiden speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond. As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, he is a welcome addition to our military Benches, and I look forward to his future contributions.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Was it warrior Benches? There you go: that shows the difference between us. I will not go any further.
Trump’s attack today on the free press, backed by Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, is full of irony. Twelve months ago, the Chatham House report on America’s international role under Trump said that his foreign policy path would be hard to predict. It pointed out his fondness for,
“unpredictability—a characteristic long noted as dangerous in foreign policy—and has a tendency towards inflammatory and escalatory rhetoric. He is transactional and short-termist in outlook, has little respect for long-standing alliances and partnerships”.
Twelve months on, Trump started 2018 with a flurry of tweets that sparked protests across the world, caught allies off guard and further divided opinion in Washington. As we heard in this debate this afternoon, he has split the international community and inflamed Palestinians when he recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by moving the embassy. He then threatened to punish those who voted against the move at the United Nations General Assembly by cutting aid.
I say all this because the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Robertson was a telling point about this debate. We need to focus on the reactions to these things, not just what Trump intended. There is a positive reaction. It causes us to focus on what we have and the important things that we value. Trump’s own view of his first 12 months was to praise his own Administration for victories against ISIS in the Middle East and for bringing unprecedented pressure to bear on the North Korean regime. The national security strategy unveiled in December also labelled Russia and China among the chief challenges facing the US, despite Trump’s overtures towards their leaders. That has been reflected in today’s debate.
Ryan Crocker, the former US ambassador to Iraq and to Afghanistan, who served both the George Bush and the Obama Administrations, said:
“Other than the neo-isolationism I do not think there is a pattern to his foreign policy … I think he is purely reactive”.
But our reaction must be about what that vacuum is creating. That is the important role of Britain internationally in supporting a rules-based system and human rights. In our debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill this week, I was pleased that this House focused on the importance of championing human rights, which will be at the core of our activity.
Another consequence of Trump’s actions over the past 12 months has been the deep cuts to the State Department budget and the dearth of high-level diplomatic appointments—the failure to make key important appointments. As my noble friend Lord Robertson reflected, we have also seen cuts to our foreign and diplomatic services which will impact on our ability to fill that vacuum. There is no doubt that Trump’s lack of interest in established diplomatic protocols has put a strain on the close relationship between No. 10 and the White House. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, pointed out, UK national security strategy is largely designed to work this special relationship from force structure to intelligence sharing. It is critical.
On Trump’s “America first” agenda and the new national security strategy published at the end of last year, we have heard, as the US National Security Adviser Lieutenant-General HR McMaster said last year, that “America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone”, and that the US would continue to work closely with allies in pursuit of a global leadership. That is another key element of today’s debate. We have the rhetoric and the tweets, but we also have effective co-ordination at a range of levels in our special relationship, which is something that we should not miss.
The highest priority in the strategy was given to the protection of the American homeland from attack. Another overriding theme was a focus on American prosperity as the core national security goal. I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He is absolutely right that there is an additional threat to the rules-based system, which is about trade. Trade has become one of the key focuses of President Trump. It fits in well with the presidential election narrative targeted at the working classes in the US with growing concerns about stagnation and declining competitiveness. I will return to this theme at the end of my speech.
One of the things we have seen in the excellent House of Lords briefing that we had for this debate are Professor John Bew’s observations that one can see subtler themes in the strategy that McMaster highlighted. They are talking about peace through strength—a conscious sort of reminder of the Reagan era, reflecting Trump’s demands for more effectiveness and utility in the international game. McMaster is also keen to stress that the US will expect reciprocity from its allies in terms of supporting NATO for example, as we have heard in this debate.
From our point of view there are synergies in terms of our concerns, particularly about the security challenge posed to American interests referred to in its national security strategy, and to its allies by Russia. From our point of view, that also links to cyber and the policing of the internet, which is becoming an increasingly important aspect, not only of defence issues but of defending our liberal democracy and the values that we have talked about.
The Doug Stokes article in the latest volume of International Affairs, published by Chatham House, said that Trump’s administration,
“combines elements of isolationism with cost-benefit bilateralism and, most strongly of all, a deep ambivalence towards the liberal international regimes that America has helped bring to birth and sustain since the end of the Second World War”.
But I think what I have heard in this debate is that our special relationship with the United States is not about one man; it is about our common heritage, our shared values and democracy. It is important to reflect on that. Our focus on that relationship cannot just be seen in terms of that individual relationship; it must be seen much more in terms of that soft power that we have been talking about, and certainly we had an excellent debate in this House on the report of the Select Committee on soft power. I think it is still worth reading that report because it focuses on a number of key issues. I think, for peace and security, our relationship remains very important. As James Landale of the BBC put it:
“It is almost as if the Trump modus vivendi has made it even more obvious that the transatlantic relations that matter are the historic state-to-state contacts between the different agencies of government rather than the personal relations between individual leaders”.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said it absolutely perfectly. We have new networks that are developing. We need to reach out to those networks, and not only new networks of countries. One of the things that Trump’s campaign has taught us is that there are new means of communications. As a foreign policy objective, we should reach out not only to all politicians but to civil society, because that is how we maintain our liberal rules-based organisations in the world. Reaching out through new media and new contacts—that is what our soft power should focus on.
I commend the debate and I conclude by thanking the noble Lord for initiating it, but it is not the end and the last word. This debate will continue over the next three years of Trump’s Administration.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I first join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, not just for tabling this debate but for introducing it in a very informed and thoughtful manner. He appropriately set the tone demonstrated by all contributions to this excellent debate, which is well-informed and again reflects the best of your Lordships’ House in terms of expertise on a wide range of issues.
It would be entirely appropriate at this juncture to welcome the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, to his place. In his first excellent speech, he said he would be non-controversial. Drawing a military analogy, he was non-combative in that sense as well, while the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, welcomed him to the warrior Benches. It is for me, on behalf of the Government, to welcome him to all Benches. He is a valuable addition to the House and I look forward to working with him across the months and years.
For over a century, the most important and epoch-defining international partnership has been, as noble Lords have acknowledged, between ourselves and the United States of America. It is an alliance that has overcome tyranny. It has championed rules, rights and freedoms that have transformed lives and livelihoods, both within our borders and beyond. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also pointed out the excellent relationship we have enjoyed at the United Nations and the important role we have played with the United States in the UN as a P5 member. Let me assure all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the UK is committed to further strengthening the rules-based international order and international organisations such as the UN, which have been central for this rules-based system for the last 70 years. Indeed, before Christmas we worked with the US and other partners to secure General Assembly resolutions in support of the UN Secretary-General’s current plans for reform efforts within that organisation.
Together, we have a rules-based international system within which we work closely with the United States and other international partners. This system, albeit imperfect, has enabled a period of relative stability and prosperity that we have never seen before. We stand together with the United States—and with Europe—in facing a resurgent Russia, an assertive China and new forms of threat across the world. We have shared great successes, for example in the fight against Daesh, in close co-operation on intelligence issues—as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, pointed out as part of our Five Eyes alliance—and bilaterally and in our shared commitment to NATO, reflected on by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts.
I am confident therefore that we need no further persuasion, as we have all agreed, whatever perspective was drawn in this debate, of the United States’ continued importance to UK interests; nor of the pivotal role the United States will continue to play for many years to come, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Helic, among others, in shaping the way the world deals with a host of issues that are fundamental to us. Whether we are dealing with the challenges of North Korea, or—as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out—closer to home in the Balkans, the USA has a close role to play. In that respect, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—we talked about global Britain and the three circles—that, yes, there are times of challenge in the UK-US relationship, but it remains, as all noble Lords have acknowledged, a constant, constructive dialogue; from engagement across the board at working level to regular calls between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President. The strength of that relationship means that we are willing and able to have frank discussions with each other when we disagree, and rightly so for each ally.
The President has set a new direction for US policy, as many noble Lords have set out today. There are issues of difference from us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, pointed out. On climate change, not only have we been strong, we have continued to work with other international partners. My noble friend Lord Lamont pointed to the Iran nuclear deal and I can assure him that we continue to work strongly with our European Union colleagues, and the EU3 in particular, in ensuring that deal stays alive, while not missing an opportunity to ensure that the United States also continues to support that important deal. Multilateral trade agreements and the Middle East peace process, which I will come to in a moment, have been areas where we have differed from pronouncements made by the Administration. Notwithstanding differences, however, we continue to work very closely alongside the Administration on all these issues, as friends, as allies and, as my noble friend Lord Howell aptly put it, as partners in this relationship. We do not agree on everything but divergence from particular US foreign policies is nothing new for the United Kingdom. British Governments of all political colours have at times found themselves at odds with some aspects of US foreign policy. On major post-war issues such as Suez or Vietnam, the US and UK did not agree. The Thatcher/Reagan years are often cited as a high-water mark in relations between our two countries, yet even they were not always aligned on every issue.
Turning briefly to Iran, my noble friend pointed out that this is an important relationship to retain. I acknowledge his important efforts in this regard but I also reassure him that the recent visit by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Iran was a dialogue that was both constructive and raised issues of mutual importance. Yes, we are encouraged by some of the pronouncements made by President Rouhani, particularly with some of the challenges and protests we have seen on the streets of Tehran. As we move forward, there are important parts to this relationship: good co-operation with the Trump Administration is important. For each of the policies on which we disagree there are many more we agree on.
I shall reflect on some of the points made by noble Lords during this debate. The noble Lords, Lord Ashdown, Lord Judd and Lord Robertson, spoke very poignantly of the importance of soft power. Indeed, on reflecting in preparation for this debate I was reminded that Portland Communications recently did a survey of soft power which included government assets, but also the private sector and its representations across the world—we were second on that list. That does not mean that we rest on our laurels. I saw, in my time at the Foreign Office, the important role the British Council plays. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, about Chatham House; I might add Wilton Park to that list. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, pointed out some of the challenges. He talked of population growth being a focus of foreign policy initiatives. Perhaps he should have a conversation with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who mentioned that very term but also the solution, which he feels equally passionate about. I am sure it reflects the sentiment across your Lordships’ House, about how that can be dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, touched on educating and empowering girls and women as part of the solution to some of the challenges that we face. Girls’ education is at the centre of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, talked about our vital relationship with the US in intelligence. The US is a long-standing ally and I know from my time as Aviation Minister and as Minister for Countering Extremism the vital work we have done in sharing intelligence and averting terrorist incidents—those impacting our streets here in London and across the world, and those in the aviation sector. Equally, I assure the noble Lord that we work exceptionally closely with our European partners on intelligence sharing, joint operational work and sharing our experience of developing threats. It is our view that close co-operation will continue regardless of the UK’s future relationship with the European Union after Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, again talked about a differential with the withdrawal of aid to Pakistan. The UK and Pakistan have shared an interest in the battle against terrorism and we regularly highlight to Pakistan the importance of taking effective action against all terrorist groups: it is a constructive relationship that we believe in. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, among others, touched on the Middle East peace process and particularly the recent pronouncement by President Trump recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before any final status agreement. Let me be clear: the British government position has not changed—east Jerusalem is regarded as occupied Palestinian territory. It is our belief that the prospects for peace in the region were not helped by the pronouncement. It is important, however, to look forwards. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, also pointed out, the second part of that speech focused on the continued commitment to a negotiated two-state solution. It remains the view of the British Government that a shared Jerusalem is the way forward: a shared Jerusalem for Israel and a shared Jerusalem in the context of a viable, sustainable Palestinian state.
I turn to the global Mexico City rule that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, raised. It is clear that we will not agree with the US Administration on their policy, but let me assure her that the UK remains one of only a handful of international donors willing to tackle this highly sensitive issue. My noble friend Lady Helic touched on the important issues of Burma and Syria. She recognises, of course, the important work we have done, both at the United Nations and more recently at the Human Rights Council, in ensuring that this important issue—the displacement of close to 1 million people, as she so aptly and poignantly put it—is kept at the forefront of all people’s minds. I assure her that we are working very closely with the United States in this. As I have already alluded to, we continue to work closely with the United States on action against Daesh in Syria and Iraq. We will continue to work closely on this with our European partners.
My noble friend Lord Taylor talked about the importance of Israel, both in the context of the Middle East peace process and more generally. I assure him that the UK enjoys strong and growing relations with Israel, built on decades of collaboration across a range of fields, including education, business, arts and culture. That also provides us with the strength to ensure that we can have very candid conversations when we disagree. My noble friend asked specifically about trade envoys. I agree with him that they play a vital role in promoting UK trade. The Department for International Trade, which is responsible for overseeing our network of envoys, will announce any new changes as appropriate.
I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put it, that we also continue to deal with the US further afield. He mentioned North Korea, appropriately. I assure him that we are continuing to work very closely with the US to put maximum pressure on North Korea to change course and enter negotiations to eliminate its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Through the UN Security Council we have imposed increasingly tough sanctions to cut off the revenues that fund these illegal programmes. My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the use of sanctions. I am fresh from the Report stage of the EU sanctions Bill, which we finished yesterday and which will allow us the flexibility, through the domestic sanctions policy that we will have, to continue to work with our partners to ensure that we can impose sanctions as and when necessary. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the importance of the relationship that every Foreign Secretary has had with the US Secretary of State and he talked about his own experience. I assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and my right honourable friend Boris Johnson enjoy a very close, co-operative, productive and constructive relationship in this respect.
As we look forward, one of the areas which has been raised concerns the United States and the European Union. An oft-repeated characterisation, which noble Lords touched on, is our relationship with the US and how it frames our exit from the European Union—a choice between the US or the EU or between Europe and the world. As many noble Lords acknowledge, these are false choices. Yes, we are leaving the European Union, but our national interest will continue to be aligned with the interests of our European neighbours. We are still part of that continent, we still continue to enjoy strong relationships, particularly on security and our economies. I agree wholeheartedly with noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who implore us to continue to do more work with Europe. We will do so but our departure from the European Union will not change the reality that global problems will require global solutions. They will require partnerships and we will always need to work with countries both near and far.
We continue to work on our relationship with European partners. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, pointed out, you need only turn on the television today to see a summit taking place which underlines our close proximity with one of our closest neighbours—the closest if you look east—and that is France. The Anglo-French summit taking place today with President Macron again underlines the importance of our relationship across many areas, including stronger economies, our defence relationship and other areas of mutual interest. We will continue to work on those relationships. At the G7 summit in May the Prime Minister took the lead on engaging the US and European countries to co-operate on countering online extremism. That remains a priority on which we work collectively with our European partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, talked about soft power. If we look down the list of countries, as I said, we are second only to France. Interestingly, the United States ranked third in that survey. The noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Wallace, also talked about trade and the definition of global Britain. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the three circles remain alive and well. They are very prosperous.
As Minister for the Commonwealth I am sure that all noble Lords are looking forward to the Commonwealth Summit and Heads of Government Meeting in April. It will not replace the European Union or the UN, but it is an incredible network. My noble friend Lord Howell speaks passionately, and rightly so, about the Commonwealth relationships. We enjoy similar legal systems, education systems and languages. It is important we leverage those across the four important areas of sustainability, security, prosperity and fairness. I look forward to working with noble Lords in strengthening our role across the Commonwealth.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, talked about the FCO budget. I can assure him that, in the government spending review, the FCO’s non-ODA budget was fully protected. As we have also heard, we are working in closer alignment with colleagues in DfID, through common-aligned objectives in our development policy. Indeed most recently, along with Defence Ministers and the Secretary of State for International Development, we launched a new document looking at women, peace and security around the world and at our international partners. The document underlines the importance of global Britain in that area. Let me reassure the noble Lords, Lord Robertson, Lord Ricketts, and Lord McNally, about the role of the FCO in its diplomatic efforts and its embassies, which play an incredible role together with our high commissions. That will continue to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked questions about national resistance movements and sanctions against Syria. On the latter, without going into too much detail, those sanctions will remain in place with the regime until we see a move away from President Assad. On resistance movements, I think history tells us—albeit depending on what the notions and government structures are—that the first and primary objective must be that they must cease violence. They must put down weapons and recognise those around them as legitimate partners towards peace. I will write to him specifically on the observations he made.
My noble friend Lord Howell, among others, raised the important issue of changing global relationships. We can talk of relationships with China or India, and the Government continue to strengthen our work in this respect. As my noble friend pointed out, technology advancement, changing positions, population growth, changing dynamics, businesses, education—all these things are changing the world. That is what global Britain is all about: repositioning ourselves to ensure that we strengthen the new relationship we will have with the European Union; strengthening and continuing to build on our relationship with the United States; and recognising—through the Commonwealth and other bilateral relationships—the importance of building and developing prosperity, trade and relationships across the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke in the gap, quite rightly, on the concept of trade and touched on the WTO. Let me assure him that the UK will remain steadfast, notwithstanding any challenges, as a champion of free trade at the WTO and in establishing the UK’s future independent trade policy. As we leave the European Union, we will continue to work closely with WTO members, including the US, to ensure a simple, fair, transparent transition for all parties, that minimises disruption to our trading relationships with other members.
In conclusion, the UK Government have engaged historically, and will continue today and in the future to engage, with the US Administration, issue by issue, policy by policy. It is a strong, productive, important relationship, and we will continue to work as we have always done. We will use every tool of friendly co-operation and influence to persuade the US Administration of the benefits of working for our common interests. That allows us to have those candid conversations when we disagree. As we have always done, we will continue to cherish and nurture our close relationship with the US. It is a relationship based on shared history—as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said—and on shared fundamental values and shared interests. It is a relationship that transcends personalities and party politics—a relationship that matters hugely to both our countries, and which has been a driver of peace and prosperity for many, many decades. This relationship is as important today as it ever was before. In an age of geopolitical turbulence and uncertainty, it is a relationship that I believe—and I am sure it is a sentiment expressed by all noble Lords—will endure the test of time and endure long into the future.
Finally, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. As ever, as a Minister responsible in this House for foreign affairs, I am for ever enlightened and informed.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, I shall of course not detain the House for more than a handful of sentences. That was a very high-quality debate—I know we always say that, but it really was. I listened to it intently and learned from it a lot. I make two comments, very briefly: I noted the point of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, that I was being too pessimistic—this was not the 1930s, it was 1914. I am not sure that I draw a huge amount of comfort from that, but there we go. I was moved to be described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as charmingly old-fashioned. No one has ever said that about me before, and I shall relish it, coming as it does from the noble Lord. It has been a privilege to lead this debate, and I beg to move.
Legal System: Prosecutorial Policy
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Aberavon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which the legal system does justice to alleged victims in the commencement of prosecutions, the disclosure of evidence to defendants, and the relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police authorities.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I hope this debate is timely, given the almost daily reports of difficulties in sex-case trials. I have spent over half of my adult life at the criminal Bar, and I am deeply aware of the necessity to respond to the needs of justice as problems arise.
When I became Attorney-General, the CPS was in a mess on a number of issues. I invited a distinguished retired judge, Lord Justice Glidewell, to chair an inquiry in which the noble Lord, Lord Dear, played an important part. I am not suggesting there is a need for such a broad inquiry now, but some particular aspects of prosecution require some form of independent review.
The Attorney-General, by statute, supervises the CPS. The House was told last week by the Minister that the practice of him meeting the director frequently and regularly continues. I was glad of that assurance. In my time, the directors would come to discuss problems in individual cases, and particularly those which might be of interest to the public. In most cases, the decision to prosecute was taken by the directors but, in the cases raised, it was of mutual assistance to discuss problems; I hope that, as a senior criminal law practitioner, I was of assistance in the delivery of justice.
I hope the decision in the Worboys case to prosecute only 23 counts—and, of those, only a single case of rape—was discussed with the Attorney-General. I fully understand the rationale of selecting only the best cases to prosecute. However, the machinery to ensure that the victims—including more than 100 other women, according to the police—knew the reasons for non-prosecution in their cases is crying out to be revisited. I have no comment to make on the sentence involving one allegation of rape.
The trial judge, the late Mr Justice Penry-Davey, whom I knew well, had wide experience of criminal law and more. It seems that the sentence was within the guidelines of the time. Had more cases been brought before the court, the sentence might well have been considerably more; the full gravity of the alleged offending would have been understood and dealt with in a sentence.
The victims are concerned about the decision of the Parole Board to release Worboys. Their particular concerns are, first, about how they found out and, secondly, about the conditions on his release. Only one victim was consulted. The Parole Board is an independent body and operates according to its own rules. The Parole Board chairman blames the Justice Secretary because the victim contact service is tasked to do that. It may be revealed in the course of court proceedings whether the Parole Board Rules were carried out. Is there a precedent for a Minister to apply for judicial review of the board’s decision? As the board is financed by the Government, and probably by the Ministry of Justice, I wonder what the precedents are. I trust that the Government will get better legal advice than they did when they appealed to the Supreme Court on Article 50.
Mr Brandon Lewis MP, now chairman of the Conservative Party, has been criticised by Sir David Latham, a former chairman of the Parole Board, as being irresponsible in his remarks. I tend to agree. If the Minister is advised to proceed on judicial review against the Parole Board, the Parole Board itself will then have to consider its position. I advise the Minister to proceed with caution.
I have nothing against Mr Nick Hardwick, whose board has a most difficult talk. It needs only one of these prisoners to go wrong to bring the whole edifice into question. I understand that only 1% do so. I hope that, in the discussions, the representations made on more than one occasion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, about prisoners with indeterminate sentences are not forgotten.
Mr Hardwick has previously chaired the Police Complaints Commission and been Chief Inspector of Prisons. It has been noted that some gentlemen—and ladies—move seamlessly from one quango to another. Looking at it broadly and philosophically, and not being personal, might it be time for the Cabinet Office to consider whether a much wider pool of talent should be looked at, rather than playing for safety in public appointments and moving pieces around the chessboard? Mr Hardwick now wants more transparency; I wonder whether this was considered at the time of his appointment. I have looked at the Parole Board Rules and they are easily amendable by regulation.
The second issue is the disclosure of evidence which might help the defence and undermine the prosecution. When I recently questioned in the House whether we had gone backwards since 1997 in the practice of disclosure, the Minister blithely assured the House that we had not. I would be fascinated to read his brief on this point. The reality is that, with the growth of social media and the use of mobile phones, the volume of evidence to be considered has grown immensely and made the task of disclosure much more difficult. Might not the downloading of material from mobile phones during the period of alleged offending always be flagged up and specifically considered? Nevertheless, the need to disclose in the interests of justice is still paramount. Last Friday’s press reported that, after the collapse of Mr Allan’s trial and similar cases, the police in London have been issued with a new communications assurance policy to ensure full compliance. I find the Minister’s assurance to the House now even less persuasive.
The recorder, Mr Bruce Houlder QC, previously head of the court martial and a very experienced prosecutor in his time, believes that something is seriously wrong with the process of disclosure. It is not a new problem. In July 2017, the joint report of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary warned the CPS about the widespread failure to hand over important evidence, and highlighted six cases of failure and called for action. Given the Attorney-General’s supervisory responsibility, I have two specific questions. First, when did the Attorney-General last discuss with the prosecuting authorities the issue of non-disclosure? Secondly, was the joint report to which I have referred discussed, and what action was taken?
There have been many cases reported recently, I fear, but going back a little to 2015 and the case of R v Salt, the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, offered guidance in a case where there were difficult counterbalancing pressures, referring to,
“where continuation would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety or would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute”.
We are told that the Metropolitan Police is reviewing 30 other cases with the CPS. The role of the police in disclosure is crucial. That is the beginning. We look forward to the publication of this review. The problem seems to be much wider than the detective constable in Allan’s case. We need something more independent, from top to bottom, to ensure, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that there is no further undermining of public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and appreciate his wisdom in bringing this matter before the House—although I am slightly embarrassed to be sandwiched between two such experienced practitioners as the noble and learned Lord and the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I will refer briefly to each of the three propositions that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, set out in the Question he put before the House.
Does the system do justice to alleged victims? There are many ways in which it does not, but I ask, in particular: is there is a danger that not all the cases which could meet the evidence test are taken to trial because of the pressure on police or CPS resources, or perhaps because there is a wish for the trial and the prosecution case to be manageable in court and capable of being absorbed during the process of a jury trial? If that happens, for example, in a case of rape or serious sexual assault, does that lead, possibly, to a lesser sentence than might otherwise have been passed and create the situation that we have seen in the Worboys case? That is the first question that I want the Minister to reflect on.
The second question is: does the failure to meet disclosure requirements harm defendants and, in some cases, victims? Certainly it harms defendants—recent cases have given vivid illustration of that. Defendants have often spent a long period on police bail, during which their reputation and their standing in the community have been severely damaged if not totally destroyed, for a case which does not in the end come to trial or which collapses in court because disclosure requirements have not been met. Of course, it can cause harm to victims as well, partly because it discourages them from coming forward when they see collapsed cases, and perhaps in some cases because matters which might have convinced the jury of guilt do not go forward because failure to disclose has wrecked the trial by that point.
The inspectorate report to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred was absolutely scathing. It said:
“The inspection found that police scheduling (the process of recording details of both sensitive and non-sensitive material) is routinely poor, while revelation by the police to the prosecutor of material that may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case is rare”.
The auditing process was criticised with the comment that it was,
“likely to reflect badly on the criminal justice system in the eyes of victims and witnesses”.
I recently had the experience of doing five weeks on a jury at the Old Bailey. One thing I took away from that was a realisation—that no amount of evidence given to the Justice Committee had fully persuaded me of—of the sheer scale of the disclosure requirements when faced with social media, CCTV, number plate recognition and all the other technical aids which have been so important and, indeed, so valuable in demonstrating guilt in many cases. The quantities of material involved, and the police time taken up before and during the court proceedings, are enormous requirements. They magnify massively the disclosure requirements and the means necessary to achieve what we all seek: namely, the proper and timely disclosure of exculpatory material to the defence. This scale of material clearly calls for a fundamental revision of how disclosure is managed. I hope, again, that the Minister has been reflecting on that in the light of recent cases.
That brings me to the third leg of the question: the relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS might well be expected to play a bigger part in trying to make sure that the police do what they need to do—ensure that potentially exculpatory material is found—and that in general this mass of material is properly used.
The relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is closer than it used to be, with more pre-charge advice. There was quite a movement in that direction a few years ago, which included trying to co-locate the CPS with the police, although I detect a slight pulling back from that because of the fear that the independence of each side could be jeopardised in some way. In this respect I would like the Minister to reflect, with his own considerable knowledge, on whether there are advantages in the system in Scotland, and in some other European countries, or whether those systems pay too high a price in terms of the independence of the prosecutor from the police and vice versa. In Scotland the procurator fiscal and Crown counsel are in a position to direct police inquiries, which is not the case in England. Is the price paid for that the diminution of the respective independence of the two bodies, or is it something we ought to look at? Would it be helpful in trying to ensure that the kind of machinery we now need to handle these disclosure issues is put in place in police forces and integrated with the Crown Prosecution Service?
All this has massive resource implications and we cannot simply run away from them. The fact that we now have a wide range of material that can demonstrate either guilt or innocence—and is very important in doing so—is something we neither can nor want to change. However, it places much heavier requirements on the system, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s reflections on how that can be dealt with.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
This is a timely debate, and I shall deal with only one of the questions posed, namely the one about disclosure. I do so because this problem ought to have been solved many years ago. It is the continuing failure to solve it that I shall concentrate on.
Essentially, the one point I wish to make is that the law in relation to disclosure is clear, simple and fair: fair to the defendant and to the complainant or victim. What has gone wrong, however, is the successive failure, over many years, in implementing the law and having proper procedures on the part of the CPS and, more particularly, the police, to ensure that the law is complied with.
I will elaborate a little on this. The law was set out in the 1996 Act and is clear, with its codes of practice and the Criminal Procedure Rules that have been made alongside it. There were, however, issues, and in 2011 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the then Lord Chief Justice, appointed Lord Justice Gross to look into the entire system. He looked at what happened in the United States and in continental countries to see if we could learn anything. He came back with a very clear recommendation that no legislative change was needed but that a great improvement was needed in how it was handled in this country. In particular, he recommended that there should be a proper recognition of the consequences of the electronic and digital age. In 1996, it is fair to say, the proliferation of documents could not have been anticipated. The focus of Lord Justice Gross’s excellent report was the problem that had arisen in serious fraud and similar cases. He was not concerned with the problem that has come to the fore recently.
As a result of Lord Justice Gross’s report, in December 2013 the then Attorney-General, Mr Dominic Grieve, issued a further guidance on disclosure. At the same time I, as the then Lord Chief Justice, issued, with him, an agreed protocol for dealing with unused material. We both emphasised that the proper disclosure of unused material, made through a rigorous and carefully considered application of the law, remains a crucial part of a fair trial and essential to avoiding miscarriages of justice.
We both realised that there was no point in these fine words and fine documents without putting in place a system of training and explaining what should happen. That was undertaken. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has mentioned, it became apparent in 2015 that what had been hoped for was not being done. Part of the explanation may be a huge rise and change in the use of social media in sexual cases. In the old days you had very little by way of disclosure; now, you have massive amounts. From my experience of reading through it, what is exchanged on social media came as a great surprise to many of my age. It is, however, critical, because it shows how the relationship is and, in particular, what may have happened.
In the case to which the noble and learned Lord referred, it was clear—as the trial judge found—that there had been gross incompetence on the part of the police officer. As we caused inquiries to be made of the chief crown prosecutor and the chief constable, it was clear that the fault was systemic. At the end of the judgment we said, in the court, after referring to another 2015 case, that we hoped that that case, and this one, would receive the closest study by the chief crown prosecutors and the chief constables, as there should be no recurrence of failures of this kind by either the CPS or any police force. That was more than two and a half years ago.
We considered asking the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to see if some kind of supervision could be imposed by the courts, in imposing sanctions for a failure to comply with the law. It was thought, however, and resolved by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee that this would be impractical and have collateral consequences.
Two noble Lords who spoke earlier referred to the report of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. It is an excellent report, conducted by two people of great experience. Their conclusion is so important that it is worth reading in full—it is a short paragraph:
“Non-compliance with the disclosure process is not new and has been common knowledge amongst those engaged within the criminal justice system for many years and it is difficult to justify why progress has not previously been made in volume crime cases. Until the police and CPS take their responsibilities in dealing with disclosure in volume cases more seriously, no improvement will result in the likelihood of a fair trial can be jeopardised”.
The report set out a number of recommendations. It was six months to the day that the report was published, and various things should have been done within six months.
I therefore very much hope that the Minister will obtain from each chief constable and each chief crown prosecutor what has been done. We can no longer continue this failure of accountability. There is a very broad issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred about the accountability of the relationship. Time does not permit that but what we must surely do is to have concrete action on the accountability of chief constables, who really are not accountable for this matter, and much closer scrutiny of what is happening in the CPS. I very much hope that the Minister will undertake this task and put before the House the responses of the chief constables as to what they have done. It is a disgrace—I do not use that word lightly—that this problem has been left unresolved for so long.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on securing this important debate. In December 2016, your Lordships’ House voted to strengthen the current victims’ code in a number of ways, including giving a duty to all the agencies involved in any case to follow the code. The duty is presently much weaker than that. At considerations of Commons amendments in January last year the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said from the Dispatch Box that the Government would publish their strategy to strengthen the victims’ code within the year. We know that it has been delayed and we will continue to hold the current Minister and others to account for a consultation by Easter, and for a strategy to be published this calendar year. The fact that it is one year overdue has already affected the lives of a number of victims adversely; we know that there are flaws in the system.
In the short time available in this debate, I will focus on the experience of the most vulnerable victims. This week the Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who I see is in her place, published her excellent review into the provision of registered intermediaries for children and vulnerable victims and witnesses. The review makes chilling reading. These RIs are trained to work with children and those with specific conditions who need extra support to be able to give evidence in court. In example after example, police officers and CPS advisers—as well as the RIs themselves—talk about how the CPS and the court process, and especially funding problems, are denying these victims and witnesses their rights under our judicial system.
For example, the review says:
“One police officer described how she carried out an interview with a male victim of assault with severe learning disability. She said, ‘every time he spoke he just giggled and could not communicate with her. He responded really well to the male RI, who was able to simplify the questions sufficiently for him to understand and answer them. It made a big difference. The RI struggled a bit but eventually got a full account of what happened. It meant that the man could have access to justice!’”.
In 2016, an HMIC inspection into child protection at the Metropolitan Police Service reported that senior officers,
“recognised the limited availability of RIs and the negative effect this has on the quality of the service provided to children and young people and have raised with relevant partner organisations such as the Ministry of Justice”.
It was also reported that the delays and slow processes in being able to hire an RI were hindering children and vulnerable people in getting access to the help they needed.
To quote again from the report:
“One CPS advocate described her involvement in a case in which the victim was a 15-year-old girl who was assaulted on her way home. The girl had severe brain damage as a child. A statement was taken and the police officer felt that the victim was able to do the ABE”—
the evidence—
“on her own ... The police and the CPS could not agree and the funding for an RI was refused in this case”.
However, there are some good examples, too. The Norwich constabulary uses the achieving best evidence language screening toolkit, known as ABELS, to screen for the communication needs of victims. Other constabularies receive information from schools or social workers for children aged under 10. The problem is that practice is inconsistent—particularly so for vulnerable adult victims and witnesses. What is the Ministry of Justice doing to ensure that best practice is disseminated to all constabularies—and, if ABELS is the gold standard, will it ensure that this gold practice is rolled out?
Police officers report that the form filling and box ticking to request an RI is overly bureaucratic and time-consuming. Once completed, it takes an average of four weeks for an RI to be allocated. This is a long time in the memory of a small child—or of some adults with learning difficulties—and police officers talked in the report about the conundrum that they face. One said: “I thought, ‘I’m just not waiting—I can’t’. That case involved a three year-old child. Because the child was three, I knew the memory retention wouldn’t be great”. The parents of the child had warned that her memory would not be great and said, “You need to get this done sooner rather than later because of that”. The National Crime Agency said, “You can’t have one for another four to five weeks”. The officer said, “That’s too late” and explained: “In a case like that I have to make a decision—do I sit and wait that long, and risk losing the information, or do I try and obtain it another way?”. What does the Minister propose should be done to simplify the allocation of RIs so that evidence can be taken from these vulnerable witnesses speedily?
Time does not permit me to go through the recommendations of this excellent review, which seems to echo many of the other problems cited with the early stages of the criminal justice system as experienced by victims. But the review is clear on the need for a much better overview and management of processes. I suspect that if that happened there would also be fewer delays and cost overruns and, even more important, less need to re-run trials because evidence has not been produced early enough or effectively enough. For children, young people and vulnerable victims this is particularly true.
We know from previous reports that a large percentage of victims are deeply unhappy with the way that the criminal justice systems treats them. For this group of vulnerable victims, the state has an extra duty to ensure that support is offered as quickly and effectively as possible, both to ensure a smoother journey for the case through the criminal justice system and to ensure that their voice is heard, with appropriate support and justice given.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, this brief and highly topical debate, for which we are greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who over many years has been a tireless contributor in this field, is focused rather on the earlier stages of the criminal justice system than on imprisonment and release. But those matters have been dealt with by those altogether more expert than me, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and I will turn instead to related questions that I have raised with the House on earlier occasions, notably on prison overcrowding. In much of what he said the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, shot and wounded, if not killed, many of my foxes, but I, too, will raise the issue of IPP prisoners, of whom alas Mr Worboys is one.
We had a two and a half hour debate on prison overcrowding in September last. I know that the recent Lord Chancellor read it, because some of us went to discuss prison reform with him. Now we have, sworn in this very morning, yet another Lord Chancellor—the fifth in as many years, such is the value now placed on that once great office. I express the hope that he and his new Prisons Minister, Rory Stewart, will now in turn read that debate and pay heed to it.
As it happens, the first leader in today’s Times squarely addresses the prison crisis. It talks of a “crumbling prison system” and the “dire” situation with fewer staff, an ever-increasing number of assaults on prison officers and fellow prisoners, and prisoners locked up for very long periods. It talks of “squalid” conditions, et cetera. Today’s Motion refers to justice for alleged victims. Justice they must certainly have, but I cannot accept that victims require us to pursue the course that we have taken over recent years of ever-longer sentences, to a point where in fact we now have more indeterminate sentences here than in all the other 46 countries of the Council of Europe combined. Overall, of course, we have a far higher proportion of our population in prison than in any comparable civilised country—I put aside, as an unhappy comparison, the United States. As today’s Times advocates, sentencing guidelines should be revisited.
Let me turn briefly to IPPs and alas, most topically, the Worboys case and the lessons to be learned from it. First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said, the prosecuting authorities, the police and the CPS should always strive to charge the accused with a sufficient number of offences to represent the full extent of his criminality and to indicate fully the degree of his dangerousness. It seems highly questionable whether that occurred in this particular case. Although a 16-year determinate sentence is very considerable—a sentence represented here by the eight-year tariff Warboys got—it might be the case that he actually should have had a life sentence. That would have been appropriate and would have kept him in prison altogether longer.
The second lesson, which Nick Hardwick—who truly is a most excellent chairman of the Parole Board—has himself been advocating, is that there should now be a radical review of the rule that the Parole Board cannot give its reasons or disclose the details of individual cases. It is perhaps worth putting on record here the most relevant provisions of the 2016 Parole Board rules. Paragraph 22(3) says that,
“a hearing must be held in private”.
Paragraph 24(1) says:
“The decision of the oral panel must be recorded in writing with reasons, and that record must be provided to the parties not more than 14 days after the end of the hearing”.
However, paragraph 25, under the heading, “Disclosure of Information”, says:
“(1) Information about proceedings under these Rules and the names of persons concerned in the proceedings must not be made public”.
(2) A contravention of paragraph (1) is actionable as breach of statutory duty by any person who suffers loss or damage as a result”.
As it happens, there were three letters on this in Tuesday’s Times this week. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, suggested that those rules were “almost certainly unlawful” and that the courts could and should strike them down. Sir David Latham, referred to already as the Parole Board chairman between 2009 and 2012, in what I suggest was a rather more balanced letter, said that it was time to look again at these rules. In the third letter, a member of the Bar persuasively suggested that there were good reasons for a privacy rule: hearsay evidence is admissible and psychiatrists, probation officers and others might well give information in the expectation of confidentiality. He said that we should certainly beware of hasty rule changes—and I agree.
The third Warboys lesson is that the Ministry of Justice must improve its system for alerting victims—including those who complained but were not themselves the complainants in the charges actually brought—of the impending release of a prisoner.
I end by urging that the Warboys case and the particular problems that it has raised really ought not to be used as an excuse by the Ministry of Justice for losing interest in the genuine grievances of many of the remaining IPP prisoners: those whose tariff sentences were often no more than months or a year or two but who remain incarcerated eight to 10 years after they have served their due punishment. Their plight has rightly been described by ex-Lord Chancellors as a stain on our criminal justice system, and so it remains. They are the subject of preventive detention, which is a form of internment—and that is not our system.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, because I agree with every word he said, particularly on indeterminate sentences. I turn, however, to the issue of rape. A startling statistic from the organisation Rape Crisis is that three-quarters of all adults who contacted their centres in 2016-17—and there were upwards of 65,000 of them— complained of sexual violence that had occurred at least 12 months earlier. Out of every 100 who experience sexual violence, only 15% choose to report it.
What follows? The Ministry of Justice’s statistics, An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, published in 2013, estimated that there were between 60,000 and 95,000 rapes annually of men and women in this country. As a result of the low reporting rate, however, only 15,000 were recorded by the police as crimes. Of these, only 3,850 were marked as detected. There were only 1,070 convictions. Do people who commit rape steal away into the darkness, never to be identified? No, not at all: 90% of those who complain of rape know who the perpetrator is. For the legal system to deliver justice to victims, the first step is for the victim to make a timely complaint.
If a person is attacked by a stranger—the one in 10 case—there is usually no difficulty in the victim complaining. The police swing into action: they identify suspects through descriptions of the attacker, forensic examination of the attacked person, and careful examination of the scene. DNA is of critical importance and frequently CCTV plays a part. A delay in a complaint of this type will obviously greatly hinder an investigation, and where a stranger is involved, the chances of a conviction are seriously diminished.
However, that is not the typical case. Far more common are acquaintance rapes, where the complainant is able to identify the suspect as someone known to them: a neighbour, a friend, or someone known through dating. Then there are domestic or relationship rapes committed by people who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members. In these cases, there are very often serious disincentives to lodging a complaint, such as the intimate nature of the offence, feelings of shame or fear that the complainant will not be believed or might be blamed for the offence. There may be a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, or fears for personal safety or the safety of children. It is, of course, entirely understandable in human terms that one or more of these reasons may cause a complaint to be withheld, but it obviously makes the investigator’s task much more difficult.
One Ministry of Justice statistic is telling. Its researches revealed that 57% of female complainants between the ages of 16 and 59 told someone but did not tell the police; 28% told no one and only 15% told the police. No one told the police but nobody else. Your Lordships will appreciate, therefore, that the evidence of a recent complaint to a relative or friend, admissible under Section 120 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, may be of real significance.
Another issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, was disclosure, which is a tricky problem. In the recent case of Allan, a huge number of emails and messages had been collected by the police from the complainant. Reports do not say precisely why or how. Clearly, if there was something in them, as there was, which would assist the defendant, it had to be disclosed. I wholly commend the barrister, Jerry Hayes, a member of my chambers, for his action as the prosecutor in informing the defence and ultimately discontinuing the prosecution. It was in the highest traditions of the Bar. I also commend the CPS and the investigators who must have drawn his attention to this material.
It must be realised, however, that it cannot be right routinely to require a complainant to disclose each and every email and message that might be on their mobile phones. A requirement to turn all intimate files over to the police must be a disincentive to making a complaint in the first place. Disclosure must be proportionate. My noble friend Lord Beith asked how it was to be managed. The Allan case illustrates the need for a further protocol that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, would be fair both to the complainant and to the defendant.
What I have in mind is that where a defendant clearly raises the issue of consent in interview at an early stage, he should be entitled to make an application first to the police and, if refused, to a magistrate, for the preservation of any electronic messaging within a specific period in the possession or control of the complainant whom he alleges consented to what happened. He should then be required to provide to the investigator such key words as he thinks appropriate for a search of the material. Clearly, his name would be foremost, but so would places, events and dates. The investigator would search the material according to those key words and anything relevant would be disclosed in the usual way. Of course, the defendant would be taking the risk of there being adverse messages, which would be admissible against him, but if he believed there was material that would assist him, it would be revealed.
The complainant need not fear disclosure of her whole sexual history. A report published last month by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General found that applications under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 were made in only 13% of the 306 rape cases examined, and 92% of those applications were disallowed, so the bar against disclosure of the previous sexual history of the complainant is very high. I hope the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, who is meeting today with interested bodies, will consider a protocol along the lines I am suggesting.
I add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, for raising an extremely important and relevant issue.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend on securing this important and timely debate. Much is heard, and rightly so, of the needs of victims in our criminal justice system, exemplified dramatically in the past few weeks by the Worboys case. The distress occasioned by the apparent failure to prosecute more cases involving this offender and, arguably, the even more worrying failure to notify victims of the offender’s release from prison is palpable.
As the Motion makes clear, there are also significant issues affecting defendants, especially in relation to disclosure of evidence material to a prosecution, which need to be addressed, and there are also concerns about the process of decision-making on whether to prosecute. These issues, although they have come dramatically to the fore in the past few weeks, are not new.
Victim Support published a report last April which recounted failures to comply with the victims’ code. Of 19 requirements laid out in the code, three were not met in more than 50% of cases, including offering a chance to make a victim personal statement and having the consequences of such a process explained, while in no less than 62% of cases victims were not asked about their needs and assessed for an enhanced service. In only four categories did the failure in meeting entitlements fall below 20%, and many were in the range of 30% to 50%. Unsurprisingly victims were much more satisfied when they received all the code’s entitlements than otherwise. There is a clear systemic failure to meet the needs of victims in a range of material issues. The report concluded that more monitoring and enforcement of the victims’ code is required. Can the Minister confirm that these matters will be addressed in the new strategy for victims expected to be published soon?
Disclosure of unused material is another area of concern, as we have heard, which is reflected in the joint report by the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the Inspectorate of Constabulary last June. As the report pointed out, every item of unused evidence should be retained and reviewed to see whether it could undermine the prosecution or assist the defence and, if so, it should be disclosed. In practice, however, the process was described as,
“routinely poor, while revelation … to the prosecutor of material that may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case is rare”.
Sensitive material is not managed effectively, and prosecutors are not managing ongoing disclosure, with an audit process,
“far below any acceptable standard”.
The report concludes that the failure to provide timely disclosure leads to,
“chaotic scenes … outside the courtroom … unnecessary adjournments and … discontinued cases”,
which,
“reflect badly on the criminal justice system in the eyes of victims and witnesses”.
The report made nine recommendations, one for immediate action, six for implementation within six months, and one for implementation within 12 months. Will the Minister update us on progress in the past nine months?
While we are considering the question of resources, it is interesting to note that the Sunday Telegraph—not my usual paper of choice—reported on Christmas Eve that prosecutors were being urged two years ago to boost rape cases but that the CPS,
“found lawyers struggling with deadlines, pressing charges where there was scant chance of conviction”,
and that the service was underresourced, making it difficult to achieve quality casework. The telling headline to the Telegraph article was:
“We warned sex trials would suffer under workload, says CPS”.
The report was published last February. Will the Minister tell us what extra resources have been allocated to meet that difficult situation?
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti last month referred to two recent cases in which inadequate disclosure of material led to acquittals, after much stress on the innocent defendants, and attributed this to the underfunding of an overstretched CPS and police service, although—one might have thought predictably—one Nick Timothy, the Conservative Party’s answer to Steve Bannon, denied that resourcing was an issue. In fairness, he at least welcomed the acquittal of the unfortunate Liam Allan after two years of police bail on a charge which ultimately fell apart. The Prime Minister’s statement that it is,
“important that we look at the issue again to ensure that we are truly providing justice”,—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/17; col. 1062.]
was very welcome, but it needs to be followed through by an independent review of process and a commitment to ensure that adequate funding is available to train, employ and supervise the relevant staff in the police service and the prosecution service.
My noble and learned friend Lord Morris asked a Private Notice Question on the disclosure issue in December. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, took the opportunity to ask whether there were,
“adequate resources, by way of legal aid or otherwise”,—[Official Report, 18/12/17; col. 1836.]
to enable defence lawyers to analyse all the pieces of relevant information, to which the Minister replied that that point would be addressed. It was surprising that no assurance on this critical point was proffered at the time. A month on, what is the position? This is surely an issue which could be addressed immediately.
One area on which the Government have appeared to take action is pre-trial cross-examination of victims, with the Attorney-General saying in November that he welcomed the further rollout of this practice. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in this area and what targets have been established for its adoption? It is to be hoped that change of this and other kinds will not be delayed because of resource implications, not least because it could actually save money if properly employed, as well as improving the substantive process and helping victims cope with the stress of reliving their experience.
This has been an interesting and well-informed debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance that progress will be made sooner rather than later in tackling the variety of problems raised not only by your Lordships this afternoon but by other organisations to which I and other noble Lords have referred.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on securing this debate.
Justice is at the heart of any democratic society, and providing protection to the public from wrongdoers, while also ensuring that everyone has a right to a fair trial, is at the centre of the rule of law. Fairness means fairness to all—equality of arms—and so, just as the prosecution should have ample opportunity to present its case before an impartial court, so too should the accused have access to relevant evidence and material that might assist them challenge or rebut the prosecution case. The court should provide an environment that encourages complainants and witnesses, sometimes vulnerable or in distressing circumstances, to give their best evidence to aid the court in determining what happened and to reach its verdict fairly. This is clearly an important debate and one of heightened public interest at present in the light of some of the cases that have come to the fore in the media.
Under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, complainants are entitled to a range of services throughout the criminal justice process before, during and after the prosecution of the accused. I shall not enumerate them. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, alluded to them and to the need for us to ensure that the code is properly applied, and I note his observations in that regard. Complainants are also entitled to be informed on whether the suspect is to be prosecuted and, if dissatisfied with a decision not to prosecute, to seek a review of the police or prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute.
Coming to disclosure, let us be absolutely clear that we are at one on this. Compliance with disclosure requirements is vital if there is to be a fair trial, which is in the interests of the complainant, the accused and indeed the whole community. All evidence upon which the prosecution intends to rely must be disclosed to the defendant. Furthermore, the prosecution must disclose any relevant undisclosed material which it is not using as evidence but undermines their case or strengthens the defence case.
Prior to recent events, the Attorney-General had launched a wide review of disclosure procedures in the criminal justice system. His review will consider how processes and policies are implemented by prosecution and defence practitioners, police officers and investigators. This was commissioned following the comprehensive joint inspection of disclosure by Her Majesty’s inspectorates referred to earlier, which concluded earlier in 2017. The scope of the review is wide, covering cases in the magistrates’ courts as well as more complex Crown Court cases and specialist types of cases, including economic crime and sexual offences. The review will examine existing codes of practice, protocols, guidelines and legislation as well as case management initiatives and capabilities across the criminal justice system, including how digital technology is used.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, alluded to the massive increase in material that has now become available—for example, in the context of sexual cases where social media may play such a significant part. Of course, social media does not just reflect messaging between a complainant and a defendant; there may be social media involved in communication with third parties. There is a massive amount of material there that is potentially relevant to any complaint.
Over and above that, I make one short observation: very often, the defendant will know or not know whether there should exist social media of that kind. We had a recent example of a case where someone complained that photographs on his phone were only produced at a very late hour. What I find somewhat surprising about that case is that the defendant must have known all along whether he had taken such photographs on his phone and whether or not they were there. If there had been timely disclosure of that, it might well have been possible to recover them much earlier than was done.
We know that we have to address the new digital age in this context. Technological developments and the way investigations are conducted are leading to new and emerging issues. The Attorney-General’s review will look at this as well as building on the recent reports on disclosure which have been referred to and identify a number of issues that have arisen with regard to knowledge, skills and training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to victims’ support. We are increasing expenditure on that. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to Section 28 provisions on pre-recorded cross-examination special measures in that context. We are addressing this: we want to reduce the stress of court and make sure that vulnerable and intimidated witnesses can give their best evidence. We are rolling out a pre-recorded cross-examination system for vulnerable witnesses in Crown Court centres in England and Wales. This will also be tested in the context of not only vulnerable witnesses but witnesses who are complainants who may be the subject of intimidation, for example.
Helping witnesses and victims give their best evidence is of course a core part of the Crown Prosecution Service’s role, and the CPS aims to do everything it can to help them with the difficult and sometimes traumatic experience of appearing in court. Prosecutors can apply for special measures to allow vulnerable, intimidated or child victims and witnesses to give evidence in court unseen by the defendant. This can be achieved also by using videolinks. Vulnerable people—complainants and witnesses—can receive assistance in giving their evidence through an intermediary in appropriate circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, touched upon the question of the victims strategy and the extent to which there was room for RIs—registered intermediaries—to be available. We are pursuing that. In 2015-16, we recruited 100 new RIs, doubling the size of the scheme. We are currently running a regional recruitment drive, which we hope will increase the numbers further by about 15% nationally. We appreciate the need to ensure that this is rolled out nationally and is not simply to be found in a few regional hot spots, if I can put it that way.
Mention was made of recent cases of failure of disclosure, in particular the Liam Allan case. The Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police are jointly conducting an urgent review into the Liam Allan case, which collapsed at trial. Clearly, it is crucial that the circumstances of the case are examined, any wider issues identified and appropriate lessons learned. The findings of that review will be published before the end of this month. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that review and speculate further at this stage. The CPS and the Metropolitan Police are also looking at all live rape and serious sexual offence cases to check that disclosure is being handled appropriately.
The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to working effectively with the police in the context of issues such as disclosure, and indeed doing so from an early stage of any investigation in order to build the strongest possible prosecution case for trial where the case meets the test for charge and to bring to an early conclusion those cases which do not. It is necessary in this context to be fair to the complainant and to the defendant in these circumstances.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has a good relationship with the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the lead officers for criminal justice on this and other topics. There is regular communication with chief constables in that context.
I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, with regard to other systems of prosecution, in particular the position under the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland, where of course a distinct jurisdiction is exercised because there the Crown and the procurator fiscal are in a position to direct the police on the conduct of any investigation. I would not like to suggest that one system is better than another at this stage. Clearly, the DPP’s guidance on charging sets out arrangements in England and Wales for the joint working of police officers and prosecutors during the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. Prosecutors may provide early investigative advice in serious, sensitive or complex cases, and in any case where a police supervisor considers it would be of assistance in helping to determine the evidence, the supervisor will be able to seek advice in that context. I accept that the system in other jurisdictions is different.
The CPS and the police have agreed a joint approach across England and Wales to monitoring and improving the quality of files submitted by the police to the CPS. There may be instances where a police file is submitted to the CPS and then returned in order that further investigation or further inquiry can be made in a particular case.
I touched upon the matter of the progress of the victims strategy that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about. The Government have made a commitment to publish a victims strategy in 2018. The new Secretary of State for Justice, sworn in as Lord Chancellor this morning, has not yet had the chance to look at the work done so far in detail, but he clearly regards this as an important part of his agenda, underlined by recent events.
Reference was made to the case of Worboys. The Government believe that there is a strong argument for reviewing the case for transparency and the process for parole decisions and how victims are appropriately engaged in that process. As I mentioned on a previous occasion, there is a distinction between those who are the victims of complaints that have been the subject of successful prosecution and those who have been the victims of complaints that were not proceeded with. In the latter case, the matter of intimation is discretionary rather than obligatory. The Secretary of State made a Statement to the other place on this matter on 9 January. He has spoken to the chair of the Parole Board and the Victims’ Commissioner about what changes might be made in the present circumstances, and the Ministry of Justice will lead the review with the view that decisions can be taken on this by Easter.
Very briefly—as I am living on borrowed time at this point—I shall respond to some points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, asked me two questions. First, the Attorney-General last discussed non-disclosure with the DPP on Monday 15 January; it is a current issue. The Attorney-General’s review of disclosure was triggered in part as a result of the joint inspectorate report that has been referred to. Progress by the CPS against the recommendations in that report is the subject of regular discussion at the superintendents’ meetings.
I am not going to go into the details of the Worboys case and what was and was not prosecuted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, suggested that perhaps not all appropriate cases had been prosecuted. It would not be appropriate to speculate on that; the CPS has an evidential test to apply, and I would not seek to second-guess the process in that context. However, I would say that Worboys was a case of an IPP sentence but I see no reason why that particular incident should impact directly upon our consideration of how we are going to proceed in the context of IPP sentences in future. That is a matter that has been the subject of ongoing debate and discussion and will no doubt continue to be.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that we are concerned about the issues raised here relating to victims, disclosure and the need to keep vulnerable victims and complainants fully informed of the outcome of a prosecution and, indeed, the outcome of any sentence, including issues of parole. I will not go into the details of particular cases that have been mentioned, but I will underline a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford: disclosure is central to our system of criminal justice, but it must be proportionate. When we come to deal with these issues, we must respect the rights and interests of the complainant and of the defendant. They are challenging issues; we are addressing them; and we shall address them further in the light of recent events.
I am obliged to noble Lords, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, again for this debate.
Green Finance
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the case for the United Kingdom to remain a global leader for green finance, and for the United Kingdom’s financial sector to be resilient to climate change.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Green Purposes Company, which is the green shareholder for the Green Investment Bank. Regrettably, it is an unremunerated position.
An interesting thing that happened when the appointment of myself and my four fellow trustees of the Green Purposes Company was announced was that the five of us were described in one publication as “reliable eco-warriors”. This took us rather by surprise because we had never really thought of ourselves in that sort of role. Certainly, and probably unfortunately, I have never been on a Greenpeace ship in the Southern Ocean protecting the orange roughy from being exterminated.
What the five of us also had in common, apart from that description, was that we had all been involved in various ways in the finance sector. It struck me then how many in the outside world see a contrast, if not a contradiction, between high finance, or finance generally, and those who are concerned about and campaign for the environment; they are seen very much as separate bedfellows. If I want to do one thing in this debate, it is to show that it is vital that those two characteristics—those skills, those markets, those interests—are indeed bedfellows in the way that the future of our planet develops.
The background to this debate is, inevitably, the Paris agreement of December 2016. Its headline purposes were to reaffirm an international agreement on the target for a maximum planetary temperature change of 2 degrees, but the island nations of this world in particular aspired to an increase of only 1.5 degrees. When I secured this debate, I wondered what the financial size was of the commitment to meet the Paris agreement. The numbers are very difficult to envisage but I shall give the House two of them. The first is that $100 billion a year is needed by 2020 to support climate action just in the developing countries—that does not even include the developed world. Secondly, the International Energy Agency estimates that $26 trillion of additional investment is needed in renewables and energy efficiency between 2015 and 2040 to achieve even the two-degree target, and that is just in clean energy efficiency and generation. However, it is not just about those areas. We also have a need for energy storage, recycling and circular economy systems, right the way down to the minutiae of smart meters, home insulation and research and development into new technology. It is blindingly obvious that public sector money has no chance of getting anywhere near those totals, so private sector investment is vital.
That is merely around the mitigation of climate change. In terms of adaptation, major weather events demand major upgrading and the provision of public and private infrastructure, the most obvious element being coastal defence. The key role here is that of the insurance industry in covering the costs of flooding, storm damage, firestorms and droughts. The numbers show that insured losses have increased from an average of around $10 billion per annum in the 1980s to an average of around $45 billion per annum—a fourfold increase so far by this decade. Overall losses are up threefold over the past 30 years: there are some four times the amount of insured losses.
Taking those mitigation and adaptation imperatives to meet the climate change challenge, and then connecting with the world of finance, we meet head-on the challenge of financial stability and resilience. Two threats are seen here. One is transition risks, which are about the reallocation of assets from dirty to clean technologies. The challenge is to do that in an orderly market transition. The remedies are classic: green investment finance; transparent corporate reporting around assets, not least the potential stranded assets; and corporate environmental performance. Then there is the adaptation side—the physical risks of climate events, which are very much down to the insurance and banking sectors.
Why is this important to us? As we know, the UK, particularly London, is a global financial centre. Let me give some of the numbers again, although many people here for the debate will know them. The City and the financial sector generally in the UK offer, and provide, £125 billion of gross value added. That is some 7% of total UK GVA. Its trade surplus is something like £26 billion, it employs 1 million people—some 3% of all jobs—and gives a tax take of more than £70 billion, which is some 11% of Treasury receipts. Only 50% of that GVA is in London. Another 10% is in the south-east and 7% in Scotland, which is another important centre.
Why is green finance an opportunity? As well as being an important economic hub, the UK has an important financial ecosystem. First, we have world-class commercial legal practices, English contract law, the London Stock Exchange, AIM and other world-class financial exchanges, top global universities and business schools, and a vibrant fintech sector. We can also provide the full range of financial services, not just the obvious Green Investment Bank-style investment finance and green bonds—although I recognise and congratulate HSBC and Barclays on the issuance of foreign currency green bonds that we already have in this country. There are also the insurance and reinsurance markets, including catastrophe bonds and resilience bonds, carbon trading, private equity and venture capital, crowdfunding and, right down at the retail end, green collective investment schemes and green mortgages. All have a place in the financing of a clean future.
Secondly, the UK is an environmental hub. We have international NGOs such as WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth headquartered in London. We have superb environmental consultancies such as E3G, university centres of excellence such as Imperial College’s Grantham Institute and—more down my way in the south-west—we have the internationally renowned Met Office, based in Exeter.
We also have environmental leadership. That came partly out of the Climate Change Act, which we as a Parliament passed 10 years ago. The original Stern report is still highly regarded. We have had, and still have, leadership in the European Union on climate change. Our sherpas were key in delivering the Paris result. We also have the leadership shown by Governor Mark Carney and the Bank of England, co-chairing with China the G20 Green Finance Study Group, and Carney’s leadership within the Financial Stability Board. I congratulate him on the work that he has done, and on what he has brought to international attention in the financial sector.
My point is that this is the perfect match in the making. London is best able to provide us all with a sustainable future, and that sustainable future needs the power and skills of London. When I say London, I mean the broader UK financial community as well. This can be win-win for the City and for our planet. Let us make no mistake: this transition to a clean economy is going to happen. As we have seen across the Atlantic, despite Trump’s efforts to reverse the clock, American states and corporate America continue to move down the path to a clean economy—rather too slowly, but the economics are driving that just as much as the politics are resisting it.
The only questions for us are: are we to remain at the centre of these new opportunities, and how do we consolidate our lead? Scandinavia is already rearing its head in this area, and there will be major investment in Asia in the future. The French have already issued a sovereign green bond worth some €7 billion. We cannot be complacent. We must maintain our position by breaking down barriers, and building on our competitive advantage.
The barriers are generally seen as externalities, such as the total costs not meeting the complete environmental and social costs, maturity mismatch, lack of clarity, asymmetric information and inadequate analytical capabilities. In London we can be really good in most of those areas. But I must say to the Government that we also have barriers in the UK, such as a shrinking home market. This week the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report points out that UK investment in renewables and smart energy technologies fell by more than half—by 56%—in 2017, the biggest fall in any country.
Our access to European Investment Bank money will disappear following Brexit. The EIB has provided loans of more than €37 billion for UK energy infrastructure since 2000. In the UK we have a lack of pace. The Smart Meters Bill will come to us shortly, yet when I came to the House over 10 years ago that was supposed to be urgent. We also have the uncertainty over Brexit and its effect on our financial sector.
What is the answer to this? There is an important agenda. We need action from the Government to achieve the fourth and fifth carbon budgets to make sure we have a good home market, and we need to keep our environmental and financial communities here in London and in the City coherent despite Brexit. I believe that we need to remain a member of the EU ETS. We need to continue welcoming all talent into the City, including from non-environmental areas. We need to create and validate world-class benchmarks and indices. We need to keep standards in our financial affairs that keep out “greenwash”, which is so easily done and will undermine our reputation, and to stimulate retail investment products so that households and individuals can also participate in this market, as well as product development and research. We need more mandatory reporting for UK-listed companies in line with the recommendations in the excellent report of the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. As a former trustee of a local authority pension fund, I know we need to show that fiduciary duty does not always mean conventional investment in huge pension funds.
I welcome the Government’s green finance task force but we need to seize the moment now. The good news is that this programme requires little public money to implement but does require legislation and some regulation. We need to reinvigorate our environmental leadership and remain outward-looking as much of the investment will be in the developing world. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take very seriously the recommendations of two excellent reports among many: the City of London’s Fifteen Steps to Green Finance and the report of the FSB’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Will the Government move forward those recommendations—not least, as a starter, the City’s demand for the establishment of a new UK green standards board? Will the Treasury issue a green savings bond, like the French?
The Clean Growth Strategy and the 25-year environmental plan are welcome but do not contain enough action. We need action now. This is a golden green win-win opportunity. In Cornwall we say, “This is the moment to ride the wave”. I challenge the Government not to miss that opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Barker of Battle (Con)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly my commercial interests in the clean energy economy and my membership of the boards of the Environmental Defense Fund Europe and the Climate Group.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. That should come as no surprise as I have engaged with him over many years. He is not only very knowledgeable on this issue but has a broad horizon. The points that he made were very apposite.
I am very excited that after what one might politely call a lull, this Government have finally got their green mojo back. It cannot go unnoticed that we now have three important Ministers at the heart of government re-energising and driving the green agenda forward again. I was delighted to see the Climate Change Minister promoted to the Cabinet in the recent reshuffle. She is the author of the clean growth plan and I know from personal experience that she is fizzing with ideas and absolutely determined to turn them into action. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy remains in his place—I am sure that was always the Prime Minister’s plan—to drive forward that industrial strategy, which has a rich green vein running through it. I know that he is absolutely committed to the decarbonising agenda. Perhaps for many the greatest surprise of this parliamentary year was the vigour with which the new Secretary of State for the Environment has grasped this agenda. Those of us in particular who may not see eye to eye with him on his Brexit views could not fail to be impressed by the reforming zeal which he has brought to that brief. He has turned Defra from an outpost and backwater in Whitehall to probably the most exciting department in government. That is great. I can honestly say that I have not been this excited about the Government’s green agenda since 2006, when I was pulled to the top of a glacier in Norway alongside David Cameron by a group of rather photogenic little huskies, who together helped us push the green agenda to the top of the political agenda back here at home.
Following that politically important trip, I was very proud to play my part in taking the Climate Change Act through the House of Commons for the Conservatives. The great thing about that Act, which had a few critics at the time, was the strong cross-party consensus that underpinned it. It is a tribute to the Labour Government of the time that they brought it forward, but in Committee, the other place and here, Parliament was at its best, and being constructive.
The criticism we faced on the climate change legislation was that we were unduly precipitate in acting the way we were, legislating in quite a dramatic way and responding to a threat that was not yet proved. Some of the assumptions that we put on the face of the Bill, requiring emissions reductions for decades to come, were very bold indeed. We had no way of knowing whether we would be able to achieve them. I am particularly proud that, thanks to that strong cross-party action, we have an Act in which targets are being met. We have met the carbon budgets up to 2017. Although there is more action required to deliver the carbon budgets in the coming decades, I am confident that there is the will in government to close the relatively small gap that will see us through to the 2030s.
I do not want to sound complacent. I do not pretend that this is going to be easy—the easiest things are probably behind us now. We can all marvel at the fall in the cost of clean energy. It is quite extraordinary. When I became a Minister in 2010, the subsidy for the smallest solar installation was 43p per kilowatt hour. To all intents and purposes, there is barely a solar subsidy now. At a commercial level, solar farms are going into operation without any subsidy at all, but the profitability of solar continues to grow. This is fantastic and confounds all of those sceptics and naysayers. It fully warrants the Government’s intervention and public investment in those early schemes and tariffs.
Here we are in 2018. Not only was the UK the first country to introduce binding domestic climate change targets but, in 2016, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, we were instrumental in helping secure the Paris Agreement. Since 1990, our national carbon emissions have fallen more and our national income has risen faster than any other nation in the G7. We have proved once and for all that you can reduce pollution while increasing prosperity.
The latest figures from the National Grid indicate that last year was the greenest year ever for the energy sector. Between June and September, almost 52% of electricity generation came from low-carbon sources and we now have the largest installed offshore wind capacity in the world. The cost of offshore capacity is tumbling thanks to that early government support. We are also continuing to phase out coal; the leadership that the UK Government are taking on that is particularly commendable. However, all of this investment historically and in the future is dependent on raising sufficient scale of finance. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the amount that we have to secure is mind-boggling.
My first real engagement with this agenda came in 2010, when I attended my first international climate conference as a Minister. That was in Oslo, just after the May general election. At the time, the international community was doing its best to pick up the pieces after the disappointment of Copenhagen in 2009. One of the few positive things that came out of Copenhagen, thanks to Gordon Brown, was the commitment that the UK secured to mobilise $100 billion in climate finance a year, by 2020, from developed to developing economies. However, that was about as far as it went. It was a vague ambition—an aspiration. It was not at all clear where that money was going to come from or where the split between the public and private sector would be, which was open to a broad interpretation.
On the flight home, sitting with my private secretary, I began to scribble a few questions on the back of an easyJet napkin. Which institutions will create these products? Which fund managers will buy these products? Which investment banks will invest in creating these markets, and, in fact, which markets will support these products? There were so many questions. When I came back, therefore, I convened a round-table discussion of a few people from the City. That small discussion became something called the capital markets climate initiative, which in turn, by the time I ended my tenure, had grown to include about 60 or 70 UK institutions from the City. I became incredibly impressed by the way in which City institutions are keen to engage on this agenda, prepared to think beyond tomorrow to years to come, and prepared to innovate to design the type of financial products we need. However, there is still a strong requirement for government leadership—for government to convene, and, when necessary, to intervene in the market. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, there is still a need for international leadership.
We therefore need to look carefully at the recommendations of the green finance task force that the Government have set up, particularly as it relates to transparency—as the old adage says, “If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it”. We also require far more of our institutions—in fact, the vast majority of our City institutions—to engage much more strictly with this agenda and to be much more open and transparent in the investments they make.
I was interested in a report that Christian Aid produced and kindly sent to me ahead of this debate, entitled Our Future in Their Plans: Why Private Finance is the Public’s Business, in which it commended Aviva and Legal & General for their response to Paris, their clear targets and their positive engagement. Unfortunately, nearly all the other institutions that were measured fell far short of what we need in the current post-Paris age to deliver those 2020, and indeed 2050, climate targets.
I am an optimist, but we need the Government to continue to lead if we are to maximise the impact that the City of London and British financial institutions can have, not just here in the UK but around the world, in helping stave off the worst impacts of man-made global warming.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that everybody in this Chamber and most people who will read Hansard are incredibly well aware of how countries across the globe—not just the traditional green players but new powerhouses, notably China and India—are now absolutely determined to achieve green economies. Our first two speakers, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Barker, gave us a sense of the extraordinary size of the investment that is necessary to back up that ambition. We recognise that we ourselves cannot possibly achieve our environmental goals, and those countries certainly cannot achieve theirs, unless we unleash the power of the financial markets to underpin green policies. Mark Carney has warned us that if sustainable strategies fail, our own economic future will be threatened. We therefore have every interest in making sure that the green finance agenda is a success.
So far, London has played an important role in developing green finance. There are 64 green bonds listed in London, raising over $20 billion in seven currencies. However, we need to be honest: it is not a dominant role. In 2017, London listed 27 new green bonds, raising $10 billion, but across the globe the issuance of green bonds totalled $120 billion. Part of that was purely domestic—not all of it was international—but it makes it clear that the dominance London is often used to in the sectors in which it leads is not yet established in this field. We have expertise in renewable infrastructure funds and in green indexes offered through the FTSE Russell, and we are known for our ability to innovate. But this is a wide-open market. Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Paris, increasingly, and New York are all players; the Irish and the Swedes are taking initiatives in this area. I wish to see London confirmed as the leading international financial centre for green finance. Of course, the Government’s green finance task force is looking at these issues, but let me recommend four actions the Government could adopt sooner rather than later that would be game-changers in confirming London’s role.
First, the Government should issue their own green sovereign bond. This would act as a mechanism to finance the UK’s own portfolio of commitments to green infrastructure. Clearly, the money could be used for energy-efficient home building and indeed for zero-carbon homes—an opportunity for the Government to bring back a programme that, frankly, they should never have abandoned. It could underpin pilot programmes in carbon capture and storage. It could be used for the long list of green transport, land management and energy projects the Government have signed up to. Just as significantly, it would be a prestige instrument, attractive to a wide range of investors, educating and pump-priming the market. The noble Lord, Lord Barker, talked about the importance of pump-priming technology. It is just as important to pump-prime new financial instruments, and this is an illustration of that. For those who say that this is slightly off the wall, my goodness, China, France, Nigeria and even Fiji have issued green sovereign bonds. We have a lot of catching up to do to be a major prestige player.
Secondly, for London to lead we need to develop the retail market in green finance—instruments small enough and local enough to attract the ordinary investor. We are seeing some action at the retail level: Triodos, Ecotricity and Belectric are three examples. Abundance is a world-leading platform that allows small investors to put their money into green projects—I was looking at its website this week—from a solar farm to the green use of whisky residues. However, it will require work from the Treasury to make IFAs and other advisers aware that they can recommend such options to clients who desire them, and broader public education is critical. Financial education—financial literacy, if you like—must extend to cover the green investment sector.
Undoubtedly there is potential for tax policy to support both the green bond and retail markets. The US offers tax incentives for bonds financing green buildings and renewable energy. For people who think that the US is well behind the curve, this is an example of where it is ahead of it. Brazil allows tax-free bonds to be issued for wind. China is working on proposed tax incentives for green bonds generally. Mexico and India have tax incentives for green bonds at municipal level. Even Singapore has a grant scheme to cover the costs of green bond verification.
What about a green mortgage scheme? Barclays has issued its first bond secured against mortgages on homes that meet energy specifications: what an effective way to drive both energy-efficient new build and retrofit. There should not be one or two instruments from one bank or another; they should be widely issued. Central and, especially, local government could play a significant role in helping this market by encouraging or even sponsoring similar instruments. The US, never slow to seize an opportunity, is pioneering a range of green securitisations well beyond mortgages, and Fannie Mae—going back to something close to the mortgage market—has completed one of largest ever issues to back energy-efficient housing retrofits.
Other noble Lords have said that this has to be underpinned by investor confidence that the projects financed through green instruments are genuinely green. This is an area where the UK, because its regulators are so highly respected, can lead.
All around the globe, various different entities have sprung up to provide verification for green projects. Some of them are not-for-profit, some are charities. But frankly, it is such a diverse and complex arena of verifiers that we can legitimately ask whether people and investors understand the standards they establish. Who verifies the myriad verifiers? So far, no one is playing that kind of role. That is a serious role for the FCA—verifying the verifiers and assuring standards for any green issuance in the UK. It would enhance the UK’s global status. We all recognise that in contrast, nothing would kill the market faster than a suspicion of falsely green claims.
This is not a time to be complacent. The climate change agenda is urgent and we must support it in any way we can. But if we can do it in ways that also enhance the UK’s global role in finance, that would be a second prize worth winning.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his insight during this debate, and for providing an opportunity to address this important issue. My City interests are recorded on the register.
I approach this debate not with the intention of giving an environmental sermon, but as a businessman, having had the privilege of launching the Green Finance Initiative at the City of London Corporation back in 2016, alongside Sir Roger Gifford, one of my predecessors as lord mayor and now chairman of the initiative, the so-called GFI. Tackling climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time, but it also represents a material and financial risk to us all. Left untackled, the cost of climate change will permeate throughout the financial services sector—via pension funds, share prices, premiums and loans—not to mention the impact on GDP and the wider economy. We therefore face an economic and prudential as well as an environmental imperative to act now.
At its core, the appeal of green finance is that it invites businesses, savers and investors to contribute to tackling pollution and climate change while safeguarding long-term profitability. In short, it is what I like to think of as business playing its part in addressing climate change. Over the last decade, green finance has risen to the top of political, regulatory and industry agendas worldwide. This was demonstrated at the G20 summit in Hangzhou in 2016, where world leaders made an historic commitment to “scale up” green finance after President Xi adopted it as a key issue for the first time.
It is well known that Paris has long identified the value of green finance, and has been driven in particular by a moral vigour since the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference at which the Paris Agreement was negotiated and adopted. Indeed, as noted, France became the first country to issue a sovereign green bond in 2017, underlining its desire to be seen as a driving force for the implementation of the goals of the agreement.
However, London’s appeal lies in the fact that it can offer more than worthy intentions; the UK can provide commercial expertise and a global business hub with which to grow this new and innovative product. One of the City’s great strengths is its ability to capture fresh trends and evolve, as demonstrated by the growth of Islamic finance in London in recent years, for example.
Since 2008, the UK has led international efforts in green finance, launching the first offshore green rupee and renminbi bonds in 2015 and 2016 respectively. I had thought that there were now 59 bonds but I was delighted to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that there may be 64 bonds listed in London in seven different currencies—a sign of how rapidly the global appetite for green products is growing and of how quickly the market is expanding.
However, your Lordships will recognise that green finance still occupies a niche position in relation to the UK’s wider financial services offering. I look forward to seeing the results of Sir Roger’s labours at the GFI, and the results from the Government’s newly launched green finance task force, which will publish its recommendations in the spring to accelerate the growth of green finance in the UK.
May I take a moment to be so bold as to make just two suggestions that I hope the Minister will take the time to reflect on? First, I would join with the previously made request for the Government to consider implementing the recommendations from the Financial Stability Board’s Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, particularly in relation to greater corporate disclosure. Indeed, through its work with the green finance task force, the GFI can act as a hub for exchanges between public and private sector to explore policy proposals for implementation, including existing UK codes, regulation and laws.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to forget all that he learned in history lessons and consider following French footsteps. I refer to the flotation by France of a sovereign green bond previously mentioned. It would certainly be a significant, symbolic and practical step for the UK to issue its own sovereign green bond and I know that the financial services industry would welcome this most warmly. Interestingly, Paris has issued a green bond—an idea not yet contemplated by London. But it is encouraging nevertheless to note that Transport for London in fact issued its own first green bond back in 2015. This may be a good moment to note that, in my understanding, there is no premium for green finance, so it is competitive.
Also central to the sector’s success here is the Government’s ability to promote the UK as a key destination for green inward investment, and the development of financial relations and solutions abroad through our green financial expertise. Given the considerable time spent in this place discussing our existing trade relations, green finance presents an opportunity to consider new relationships with trading partners around the world and a chance to exert Britain’s soft power.
The Green Finance Initiative has established formal partnerships with its Chinese counterpart, the Green Finance Committee. As confirmed by the recent Economic and Financial Dialogue, it is an extensive partnership focusing on the global development of green finance. Importantly, in 2018, the GFI expects to conduct detailed work in a number of areas including green standards for strategic investment in belt and road infrastructure. Your Lordships might also be interested to know that, in 2017, the GFI also signed a formal partnership with its Brazilian counterpart, the Council for Sustainable Market Development, focusing on public sector leadership, standards and certification, and data.
Ultimately, the success of green finance lies in collaboration. International leadership and partnerships will be key to driving capital flows through London after the UK leaves the EU. It is essential that London, as a financial centre, remains flexible in adapting to the needs of investors and customers in order to continue as a global leader in green finance. To this end, the City of London has already focused attention via government, business, banks and institutional investors on ways in which to grow the sector, while promoting best practice. Combined with the Government’s commitment to a new industrial strategy, which your Lordships debated in this place only last week, and the Clean Growth Strategy, the UK is in a strong position to capitalise on progress already made.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing this debate. This year’s COP 24 UN climate change conference will be a crucial opportunity for the world to accelerate its climate ambitions in order to try to meet the 1.5 degree Paris commitment. This country faces a choice: do we want to lead the charge on this or drag our heels somewhere near the back? I welcome the UK Government’s recent focus on environmental issues. Initiatives such as the green finance task force, the endorsement of the Financial Stability Board’s task force on climate-related financial disclosure and the UK’s setting up of the Powering Past Coal Alliance at COP 23 all show how we are influencing discussions at global climate change meetings.
Good progress is being made, but there is more that the UK can do to be a global leader in green finance. This is an effort that requires the leadership and hard work of the Government—and, crucially, as other noble Lords have noted, the co-operation, collaboration and initiative of private business. Vital to this is recognising that sustainable business is good business. The idea that a business model that incorporates environmental and social responsibility is in conflict with financial results and the bottom line is simply a fallacy. A business that manages environmental and social issues well is a more sustainable one, even if the results take a little longer to bear fruit. Businesses and banks have much to gain from the growth in the market for renewables and from reducing their exposure to the risks associated with lending for fossil fuels.
Sustainability starts with transparency. There must be a culture change in financial reporting methods so that companies disclose to shareholders and investors the full extent of their carbon footprint and how they are working to reduce it. This was the recommendation of the Financial Stability Board of the G20 last year. I am proud to say that the Church Commissioners were recently successful in passing a shareholders’ resolution asking the oil giant Exxon to report on how its business model will be affected by global efforts to limit the average rise in temperatures to below 2 degrees centigrade. As Christians, we in the Church recognise that humanity has a God-given responsibility for the stewardship and care of the earth and its creatures, and this is just one part of embracing that responsibility. Several of Exxon’s peers, including BP and Shell, have already followed suit, sending out a very strong signal that investors expect businesses to integrate climate change considerations into their business strategies and disclosures. Crucially, however, these disclosures are not mandatory for all companies. Will the United Kingdom Government consider introducing mandatory carbon emissions reporting for companies to ensure that investors have all the information they need?
While transparency is necessary at a basic level, we need to be much bolder than this, investing in green energy in creative, new and dynamic ways. It is an uncomfortable reality that, even if the Paris pledges are implemented in full, we will probably not keep warming below the 2 degree goal. Far more investment is needed in low carbon and other sustainable infrastructure and technologies. Once again the UK must lead the way on this and work to make the capital markets greener through good policy. There is a real need here for vision, policy stability and clarity in long-term policy objectives. Up to now, UK renewables policy has been riven by inconsistencies and some stops and starts. The Government’s recent sale of the Green Investment Bank, which might have overseen much of this innovative investment, leaves Britain without a key vehicle for supporting green projects. I find this a disappointing decision for a Government who are supposedly committed to green finance and combating climate change.
While much progress has been made in decarbonising current UK power supply, long-term decarbonisation policy for areas such as transport and housing, in particular, is far less clear. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change in a report in 2017, for example, recommends implementing binding regulations to ensure that all new homes and commercial buildings are near zero emissions. An encouraging step in the right direction in respect of transport was the announced intention to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040. I will ask the Minister two questions. First, when can we expect to see clear policies for both homes and commercial properties to have zero emissions? Secondly, might the Government consider that the 2040 date for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars is not bold enough? Should they bring this forward to 2030?
While we must consider our investments in energy at home in the UK, we know that climate change is a global phenomenon. Therefore, we must think ambitiously and thoughtfully about our energy investments overseas, particularly in poorer and developing nations. Indeed, as we know, climate change is disproportionately impacting on the poorest and most marginalised people in the world. Not only our environmental responsibility but our social responsibility and commitment to justice call for urgent global action to ensure equitable access to enriching and sustainable development.
DfID is doing excellent work in helping people to access clean energy overseas—for example in its Energy Africa campaign, which focuses on off-grid solar energy. However, recent figures from CAFOD show that the UK Government overall are still spending more on fossil fuels than on renewable energy in developing countries. Will the Minister commit to investigating how more support can be given overseas for renewable energy and less for fossil fuels, particularly in developing nations?
As I said in my opening remarks, for our financial sector to be resilient to climate change, the impetus cannot come exclusively from a government-only initiative. It requires the collaboration and full commitment of the entire financial sector. As yet no UK bank has produced a clear transition plan for energy financing. Banks have a vital role to play in the shift to clean energy—in investments both at home and overseas—since renewable energy companies are typically more dependent than fossil fuel companies on bank financing. This is particularly true in developing countries. Yet many are complicit in using customers’ money to finance projects that are literally fuelling climate change. HSBC, for example, has provided $45 million of bank guarantees to Adaro Energy, which is one of Indonesia’s largest coal producers.
Having said this, there is reason to be hopeful, and there are some excellent examples of good practice. In 2015, Barclays participated in loan syndicates that provided more than $1.3 billion in direct project financing to six large-scale renewable projects in South Africa, including three wind farms and three solar plants. I commend Christian Aid’s Big Shift campaign, which calls on the UK’s largest high street banks to ensure that their lending practices are in line with global climate ambitions, setting ambitious and measurable targets to increase lending to renewable energy projects while decreasing loans to fossil fuel companies. Here is another excellent example of how civil society can engage with making a real difference on this issue.
Though there are clearly many opportunities to invest in large-scale renewable energy, small-scale and off-grid energy systems often make the greatest difference to poor people in rural and isolated communities by providing clean and safe energy for household cooking and lighting. In Burundi, for example—a country with which I have close links and which I regularly visit—Christian Aid, in partnership with COPED, is working on a renewable energy pilot where the by-product from processed palm oil is converted into a fertiliser from which thousands of families are benefiting. There is a pressing need to scale up financing for such small, local projects. Indeed, it will be essential that developing countries are helped at every stage to ensure that they use energy far more wisely than we, as developed nations, have done. We dare not suggest that they hold back from development as they seek to build better lives for their people—but they can be helped to avoid the major environmental mistakes that we have made on our development pathway.
While the shift in financial investment is ultimately down to the banks themselves, I would argue that the Government have a considerable role to play in encouraging this. In addition to putting in place frameworks for mandatory disclosure of carbon footprints and other climate-related information at both individual company and portfolio level, a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, and ensuring that the fossil fuel industry has a limited influence in determining the price and mechanism when implementing carbon pricing, would all go a long way towards making the British financial banking sector a global leader in green finance, and resilient to climate change.
We must remember that part of being a global leader in green finance means thoughtfully using the global influence that we already have. So finally I ask the Minister: how is the UK using its influence with the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to persuade them to invest less in fossil fuels and more in renewable energy? Green finance matters for the whole world. Let us not drag our feet in any way in developing it well.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Teverson for securing this debate and for proving that he is the very model of a modern eco-warrior. I will focus on two areas: resilience to climate change, and transparency; and—the Minister will not be surprised to hear—the industrial implications of this for the UK.
Starting with resilience and transparency, historically UK pension investments were dominated by fossil fuels, not least because of the position of Shell and BP in the FTSE. A managed retreat from that exposure to fossil fuels is in our interests not just societally but in terms of our pensions. Progress has been made but it should be noted that the value of local council pension fund holdings in fossil fuels has actually risen 15% to £16 billion over the past two years.
Planning and reporting decisions need to be made rationally. They need to be based on investment-grade analysis and backed by real data. London pension funds have been global leaders in pressing companies to report their exposure to climate change, as we heard from the previous speaker. We warmly support the Bank of England and its task force on climate disclosure and reporting requirements for companies because, clearly, we need to do more. In that regard, does the Minister have any comments on my right honourable friend Vince Cable’s suggestion regarding reporting? He suggested that the UK should follow France’s lead in ensuring that disclosure applies both to companies and the flows of finance. That would include requiring investors to explain how their policies align with UK carbon budgets set under the Climate Change Act. As your Lordships know, transparency on sustainability, alongside transparency in financial reporting, helps investors make informed decisions.
This is a global trend and, as we have heard from other speakers, the UK benefits hugely from being an early adopter, helping to shape how the practice has developed globally. The Government can best help this by setting standards for transparency. Can the Minister reassure the House that the momentum injected into transparency by the coalition Government will not be lost over time? Reporting will also be assisted by common standards so we are looking forward to the output of the BSI, which is working closely with industry to develop a new set of green and sustainable finance management standards. The first standard will be produced, I think, early this year, but these standards will be voluntary. Can the Minister confirm that once the standards have emerged, the Government will put their weight behind getting business and other areas to adopt them? Without a standard approach, comparison becomes very difficult.
Turning to the industrial implications of this sector in the UK, as the Minister knows, importantly, the Government’s published industrial strategy includes a clean growth strategy. Clean technology must be an important element of our future industrial strategy. BEIS estimates that clean tech already employs about 430,000 people in the UK and is growing at double-digit rates. The very existence of the clean growth strategy is itself positive and we welcome it. Clean energy entrepreneurs have long felt that they were fighting for recognition. This starts that process. The Government have firmly stated that this industry is not a niche and that the clean economy is an important growth area for the UK economy. We welcome that.
Of course, the challenge is what happens next. This is a very broad sector that operates at many scales. It covers everything from a neighbourhood scheme to insulate homes, to a £1 billion offshore wind farm. Can the Minister perhaps devote some of his time to explaining the way in which the Government’s industrial strategy will vary across these different opportunities? Of course, progress turns not just on government but on access to finance, and we have heard strong interventions today from other speakers. Yet the UK’s Green Investment Bank—GIB—has been sold to Macquarie. Before the sale, GIB demonstrated the benefits of building a centre of expertise in green finance. My party regrets what we see as an ideological sale. While there are other games in town for those seeking finance, the Government must now further free things up, in particular by changing—as my noble friend, I think, pointed out—the fiduciary duties of owners of pension funds.
Place was another important, and very welcome, aspect of the industrial strategy. In that regard, the existing clean-tech industry is more geographically spread than many other industries: it is helping to rebalance some of the industrial activity around the United Kingdom. Much of this industry serves local people and is inherently distributed across the country, so it serves the “place” part of the industrial strategy agenda to continue to encourage it. In addition, the Government now plan local industrial strategies. Can the Minister say how these will incorporate the green element?
Funding for smaller projects is still a challenge. With the sale of GIB, we lost an organisation dedicated to this sector. It was, I repeat, wrong for it to be sold. We now need the Minister to explain how the Government will encourage more microfinance for the smaller, more locally based projects around the country. Perhaps the Government should also commit to allowing local authorities to borrow for green infrastructure improvements related to energy saving or other green elements.
I turn to business investment. Many businesses perhaps choose to spend capital on new plant, rather than fixing some of the environmental needs of their sites. The Government can do more on messaging the importance of efficiency—in the energy or environmental sense—to leverage higher productivity, and they can look at taxation. Will the Minister undertake to speak to Treasury colleagues about how tax can be further used to drive green investment in our industry?
Worryingly, the UK is becoming a less attractive destination for green investment. For example, the EY—formerly Ernst & Young—index measuring countries’ attractiveness to energy investment saw the UK fall from fourth place in 2013 to 10th place in 2017. Can the Minister tell the House how he intends to reverse this negative trend?
I expect that the Minister will mention the Government’s green finance task force, as have other noble Lords. We welcome it, but my understanding is that it will meet three times and disband after six months. Can the Minister confirm that and, if it is true, say what he hopes to get from such an ephemeral gathering?
Clean energy forms a significant part of green finance. Energy is complex, as the Minister knows. Heat, transport and power are inextricably linked. Any action on one element has a reaction elsewhere. Energy is badly served by decisions taken on political instinct or to grab headlines. Energy investments are long term, requiring investors to consider future policy for several Parliaments to come—often more than several. We need stable policy, developed collaboratively across the whole industry.
A clear pipeline of future work is the best environment for clean investment. Businesses that see a future market will invest in technology, facilities and the skills of their people. That helps bring costs down and hastens the transition to a clean economy. Furthermore, it will unlock the clean finance we need.
To conclude, the UK led the way on resilience and reporting. It has built great expertise in investing around the world, as we have heard from other speakers. As this debate reveals, there is cause for positive thoughts, but overall there can be no backsliding: it is a competitive world. Most of the success outlined here today is a result of decisions taken five or 10 years ago. We need to know that this Government understand today’s challenges and opportunities. I call on the Minister to convince us that he has that understanding.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. He is well known to be an expert on this subject. Indeed, to have four Members from the Liberal Democrat group speaking on this subject today, out of a total of nine or 10 for the whole debate, is an impressive total. It shows the expertise in that group on this subject. I deliberately thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent contribution—I hope not to embarrass him by praising him too much—in opening and taking the initiative on this debate. It is such an important subject.
The expertise shown so far includes the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barker of Battle. I agreed with him so much and he indicated, quite rightly, that the Government are now committed to this whole matter, whereas there were signs a few years ago that they were perhaps a bit slow in responding. The exception to that expertise in all the speeches so far is that now the quality goes down, because I am not the expert. I deliberately do not have a written text today because I want to pick up some of the points that came through in the debate. I prefer that because it becomes more of a real debate rather than just a series of conference speeches made on machine tools, following one after another.
I mention the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, again because, in addition to his expertise, there is what he did during his long and distinguished chairmanship of the committee on this subject. We first met when he was Chief Whip for the Lib Dem section in the European Parliament. He has focused on this as one of his leading subjects and we are grateful for that. I hope your Lordships in this debate will forgive me if I mention again a terrible joke—I have not used it for a long, long time. Many years ago there was a human cannonball in a circus in Britain who was injured in an accident. Fortunately, it was not a serious injury but the ringmaster wrung his hands in grief and said, “It’ll take us a long time to find another man of the same calibre”. I am embarrassing the noble Lord by insisting that there is a link from that to the quality of his contribution but it is true, and we thank him and the other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was right to question whether there are still areas of complacency around this subject. Those areas are found in some governmental circles. I do not include the Minister who will reply today; I am sure he is fully committed, psychologically and in detail, to this new policy that the Government are developing for the sake of this country and our friends in the rest of the world. But there is still a problem with these matters, which I noticed was indicated even today in two contrasting points in the press. I refer to the quality newspapers—I include the Times in that, which I hope is not incorrect and rash.
The first article I should like to mention was on page 6 of the Guardian today. It referred to how much damage was being done, in Europe and Britain, by the huge increase in the purchase and use of microwave ovens. The figure given was that it was the equivalent of 7 million cars unloading carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The article went on to say that this trend in the sales of microwave ovens has become a brand-new feature of modern life in households in the European Union and here, as opposed to the old, traditional oven, which is still used in some circumstances. That it is now a major threat and causing serious concern in those expert circles which follow these trends.
In contrast, however, on page 6 of the Times today there was an interesting reference to a study published in the journal Nature, which,
“refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature. It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled”.
The suggestion of this study—again, I quote from paragraph 2 of the newspaper article—is that,
“the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed”.
That is welcome news indeed, although, as someone has mentioned, there is a stricter target for island territories. That has, I hope, focused on reassuring people that this is a serious programme between countries and internationally, and between allies and friends and within the European Union—of which we are still, thank goodness, a member—and that we are now co-operating, following the lead in Paris. I live in France as well, and I remember, when the green sovereign French bond was launched, how excited people in France were by that first achievement. I echo the views of others in this debate who urged us to go down the same route. I hope the Minister will deal with that subject today.
Therefore, not all is depressing, but equally, not all is very reassuring in the total picture. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, when he said what a great mistake it was to sell the Green Investment Bank in that way. I think we will come to regret that later. As far as I know, the aim is really the usual fund-raising by the UK Treasury, which is, sadly, not known for its skilful management of the British economy over many decades. That is the trouble with the emphasis that we keep making. Of course, debt and debt governance for all Governments in the western world and elsewhere is a major preoccupation. I understand that.
If you take the US figures, they are now so high and unsustainable, but cannot in any way be reduced practically, that you end up feeling in despair when you think of what it is trying to do. I agree that the US is doing some things on the green investment strategy front, but it does not have enough resources. The United States defence budget is 10 times the size of Russia’s. There is not much green consequence or result in that defence spending in the United States and overseas. Another reason for us to work with our European partners on these matters is the EIB, which has been mentioned by a number of speakers. I agree entirely that it is important for us to continue that relationship if we can. I personally think that we should eventually reverse the decision to leave the EU through a democratic vote, in whatever form it might take. The whole thing is a nightmare proposition and more and more members of the British public will come to realise that.
About six years ago, we were all avidly reading the book The Burning Question by two very eminent scientists. The message there was to keep fossil fuels in the ground. That is a tall ask for the practical exigencies of the international, commercial and economic community and energy companies, but it is none the less something that should be our target for the future. We now have the good side of things developing: wind power, electric cars, solar panels and the rest of it. However, is it enough if the Government do not take the lead, as elsewhere, and with our EU partners in promoting these objectives? I thank the right reverend Prelate for his very important remarks: they showed his remarkable expertise on this subject. We are grateful for what the Church has been doing. We look forward to the Minister’s reply—with his history of many portfolios over the years and his skills and abilities—to give us a reassuring answer in this important debate today.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teverson on securing this debate. I usually stand here to warn that the Government are not going far enough or fast enough—they are not—to deliver our emission reductions commitments from the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act. However, today’s debate is really about the economic opportunities of the low-carbon economy and the low-carbon world. We have the opportunity to make the UK the green and sustainable investment capital of the world, but only if we move swiftly and take the right actions. There will be, and already is, fierce competition from other countries to lead and capitalise on this agenda, so we need to move decidedly; we need to signal to the world that we are serious, not half-hearted, not little and late, but bold and courageous if we are going to capture this market.
The potential—as we heard from many sides of the House—for green finance is huge: trillions over the next decade. It is easy to see how, within a few short years, every listed company on the planet will face calls from shareholders to explain how they plan to adjust to a decarbonising economy and escalating climate risks.
With a rising population pursuing higher levels of wealth on a finite planet, green and sustainable investments should facilitate the transition to a more sustainable economy and avoid many of the risks associated with transition. If we do nothing to create a sustainable future, we stand to lose out through enormous shocks to our economy and financial system, and then, as other noble Lords have said, there is Brexit. Sir Vince Cable, in a recent op ed for City A.M., said:
“The prospect of Brexit threatens to cause serious damage to the UK’s financial services industry. Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin and even Luxembourg are all circling like hungry jackals waiting to pick off the weakest members of the herd. London will need to develop a distinctive and competitive offer to investors. I believe we can find it … in the expanding world of green finance”.
I think noble Lords on all sides of the House agree.
The financial system is there to serve the real economy which, in turn, is there to help society thrive. We do not have the green, zero-carbon economy today that society needs, so we also do not have a green financial system channelling capital towards it. Both those things need correcting at the same time to secure progress. The financial system is just that: a system. It has multiple actors, all of whom have different incentives and roles to play. Therefore, action needs to be taken across the whole system. To categorise broadly the interventions that are needed, they are those that relate to the supply of capital; the demand for capital; and the connective tissue between supply and demand. Across all three categories, we have to ensure that the financial system is resilient, both to huge environmental change and the economic change necessary to avert it, and that we redirect capital towards activities compatible with a zero-carbon economy.
We heard from my noble friends Lord Teverson, Lady Kramer and Lord Fox on the supply of capital. All those with professional responsibilities for governing institutional pots of money on behalf of others—for example, pension fund trustees—have fiduciary duties and must take seriously climate risk and the changing economics of things such as renewable energy. Regulation can require this, training can support it and government-run pots of money can set the example. Doing so will result in large sums of money seeking green. Banks should be supervised using existing prudential regulatory powers so that we are confident that they are taking seriously the financial risks of climate change or a failure to transition quickly enough. Doing so will result in more bank capital seeking green. Insurers should be empowered to be a go-to source of investment in zero-carbon infrastructure. They have to find long-term investments to match their long-term liabilities, and they have a clear vested interest in bringing down overall levels of climate risk. If zero-carbon infrastructure investment cannot work for them, who can it work for?
As we heard from my noble friend Lady Kramer, the investing public are often forgotten, yet they are the customers of the above institutions and the citizens who stand to thrive or struggle in a green climate-changed world. The average saver or investor is quite open to doing good with their money, but the system they put money into cannot answer the most basic of questions: what environmental impact is my money having? The public have to be able to access this information and the investment advice related to it as a matter of course. If necessary, government savings products for the public should surely kick-start the market for simple, impactful financial products.
There is also demand for capital. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Fox, the Government have issued their clean growth strategy, but investors remain pretty unclear about where their capital can be put to best use to help deliver it. What about clean growth investment plans by the Government and industry to start focusing investor attention on the biggest needs? There are significant, but often overlooked, regional or local agendas here. Clean, zero-carbon infrastructure is needed right across the UK, and very often local authorities and councils could be playing a catalytic role in attracting green finance from the private sector. However, their knowledge and skills as to how to do so are lacking, so what about building capacity to issue clean growth investment plans for particular regions or green bonds for cities and regions? Indeed, the sovereign bond would not go amiss either.
Finance flows mostly in rational directions—mostly. As was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, we still have a raft of perverse subsidies, for instance fossil fuel subsidies, which make it economically sensible for money to flow into exactly the kind of activities that we are trying to wean ourselves off. The debate about needing to see an end to renewable subsidies always misses this point, yet it is a huge distortion in the market.
Then there is the connective tissue of data. Data has a transformative impact on how capital is deployed. The whole success of the green bonds market—tiny but growing—arguably boils down to just one difference between a conventional bond and a green bond: data, specifically data about how the proceeds of the bond will be used for green. Making that data available to investors has revealed enormous demand, and since demand is so often outstripping supply, issuers of green bonds are now seeing material pricing benefits in their favour.
The TCFD, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures—it trips off the tongue, that one—plays directly into the data agenda. Disclosure must be mandatory, as we have heard from several speakers today, and as advised by Aviva, the insurance giant. It must be made mandatory as soon and as smoothly as possible, and feed into all relevant existing disclosure legislation. If we get that right, the expertise we will accrue will be exportable as a service.
As for green fintech: digital technologies are transforming how financial services are delivered. If we think peer-to-peer platforms and payment systems like PayPal right through to blockchain—add in machine learning and big data analysis techniques—digital technologies are a formidable force. For green finance, they can be used to get massive amounts of data on green into the financial system, at scale and at low cost, allowing investors to differentiate between green and brown in whole new ways.
The digital revolution can make the financial system more accessible and accountable to consumers. Green fintech is a nascent area, but the UK has powerful strengths in fintech, green finance and innovation. We have such a huge opportunity to lead the world in this area, and the Government should be looking for ways to spur that market innovation.
We have had an excellent debate; I want to touch on a few of the points that have been made. The speech of the “reliable eco-warrior” behind me was a tour de force. He emphasised that all finance is really green finance and that it is win-win for the climate and the economy. I suppose if you boiled that down you would say, “We can save the planet and make money”. He also reiterated the point about mandatory reporting. My noble friend Lady Kramer talked about the size of the green bond market and how we need to educate and pump-prime new financial instruments. She advocated a green sovereign bond. She said that we need to educate the public that financial literacy is a must. She also talked of green mortgages and the verifying of the verifiers. The right reverend Prelate reminded us of the Christian commitment to the stewardship of our planet. I think it is a favourite saying of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, that business is playing its part in addressing climate change; it is an opportunity for business to show its green credentials. My noble friend Lord Fox talked of resilience and transparency, and said we needed to set the standards of transparency. He lamented, as do many on our side and, I am sure, others, the loss of the Green Investment Bank. That is one of the stupid things that we in this country do: develop something brilliant and then sell it off.
I shall touch briefly on divestments, which I was hoping would be covered by someone else. Divestment is moving hugely in this country. When New York moves, the World Bank moves, Aviva moves, the Dutch bank ING moves, Norway’s sovereign fund and Black Rock move—they all get this. There is a huge and growing reputational, financial and operational risk that Governments and investments are associating with fossil-fuel assets. They are going to become stranded assets at the same time that it is becoming clear that the economy will become low carbon.
Happily, we do not need to reinvent the wheel but we need to ensure that we are ahead of the curve. We have the European Commission high-level expert group recommendations, the Prudential Regulation Authority’s initial report on the impacts of climate change for the UK’s insurance sector, the UNEP inquiry into the design of a sustainable financial system, the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into green finance and the conclusions of the financial stability task force on climate-related financial disclosures, and in March we will have the recommendations of the Government’s green finance task force. So we are not lacking in advice, but what we need is strong action. I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope he is going to say that the Government will act with urgency, clarity and boldness. If we want this market, there really is no time to lose.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing the debate. It has been useful and constructive, and I look forward to hearing the Minister respond in kind to some very useful suggestions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has done an outstanding job in these areas. I thank him for the unpaid role that he plays as a trustee of the Green Purposes Company, and I thank all his colleagues for the work they do. It is a very important role and we are very grateful to them.
Like others, I noticed that the noble Lord bristles when he is described as a reliable eco-warrior. I certainly think that he is very reliable and, having worked with him on the Green Investment Bank, I think he is also exceptionally constructive, as was his tone in his remarkable tour d’horizon. He raised an important issue that I shall just pick up: the risks involved for the insurance industry in the grand challenge of climate change. No one should underestimate how significant they are. There has indeed been a fourfold increase but the velocity of that increase is changing rapidly and we have to be very conscious of that.
I was very moved by the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Barker, particularly his phrase that the Government have regained their mojo; that is an important point to make and it is certainly true. We welcome the green finance task force, the City of London green finance leadership group and many other important initiatives that are now starting to take place. Like many others, I regret what happened to the Green Investment Bank. All that did was to take £1.6 billion off the Government’s debt figure. That was an overriding requirement of the transaction but it yielded only £120 million. That was not the deal that I would have done. I declare my interest as having a corporate finance business. Nevertheless, we are where we are, we have to move on and at least there is some enthusiasm to do so.
We do this in the context not just of enthusiasm but of the fact that there has been a downturn, and there are worrying signs of a reduction in investment, as noted by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Fox. There are some opportunities available to the UK because we have an excellent outstanding financial centre. Certainly, in the shadow of Brexit, we have to work doubly hard to maximise any opportunities that we have, and during this debate we have heard many interesting and useful suggestions. In introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a crucial point about how we in the UK remain a global leader in green finance. The watchword for this has to be how we ensure leadership.
I want to talk about green finance in a slightly wider context. Many of the contributions have strayed into broader areas—the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made an excellent and quite wide-ranging speech on a number of areas. However, this is not just about a market opportunity. There is an unprecedented availability and uptake of solutions, particularly on treatment and on renewable energy generation and storage. In many ways you could identify that as the largest business opportunity in the world at this time, but it is also a market requirement. Sustainable capitalism, long-term capitalism, inclusive capitalism—however you wish to describe it, it is now a much more important requirement for the world at large. This is about promoting an economic system within which business and capital seek to maximise long-term value creation, and about accounting for material, environmental, social and governance issues. Integral to this framework is the consideration of all costs and benefits regardless of whether they are currently attributed with an economic cost by society.
This sort of sustainable investing is an investment philosophy and approach that allocates capital to companies aligned with these principles, and uses analysis and metrics to do it. Indeed, it seeks a competitive market rate return. It does not compromise financial returns for sustainable outcomes, or the reverse. It applies to the entire investment value chain. This is the way the world is moving—for very good reasons. That reflects not just the requirements of green areas but of all society’s impacts; it also reflects confidence in the private sector itself.
There are many advantages to take, and we have many goals in policy terms. That is not just about the transition to a low-carbon economy, or about more business models leveraging technology that improves asset utilisation, thus conserving resources and other things. It is not just about the maturing field of sustainable finance, but also about a shift in behaviours and attitudes towards sustainability between generations, with more enthusiasm and commitment towards such issues from the millennial generation and the centennials. Indeed, we face the challenge behind that often-quoted phrase, that the future belongs to those who give the next generation reasons for hope—and we have to do that.
This all bleeds into issues around corporate governance, because asset owners, managers and companies need to adopt a more holistic definition of fiduciary duty—one that incorporates sustainability and shapes investment frameworks as a result. We also need to encourage wider consumer behaviours and consciousness of these issues, even to the point of considering how our pension plan might incorporate sustainability as a key consideration, and how we can become more aware of all the consequences of our purchasing decisions. Investors, businesses and consumers alike are now equipped with the economic case for action, and the information on which to take that action.
The Paris Agreement provides a key opportunity, which has led to many calculations of the overall requirements globally. The International Finance Corporation has suggested that $23 trillion of global investment will be needed between 2016 and 2030, and I think that our Government have identified $13.5 trillion in investment in energy alone. We must energise all forms of economic activity and finance.
I shall focus on one or two particular aspects, to try to illustrate some of the challenges. It is important to establish global standards. This is not something that affects the UK alone. The lack of agreed global standards for what qualifies as a green project is fraught with many problems. For example, let me illustrate one of the challenges in the nascent area of green bonds—the crucial point at which climate issues directly meet the financial markets.
Green bonds are a fixed-income instrument used to further the green agenda. This asset class has grown dramatically, and there was more than £100 billion of issuance last year, compared with a minuscule amount only a few years ago. The momentum is extraordinary—yet there is no binding definition of “green”. There is no legal perspective in the European economies as to what constitutes such a bond. There has been a vacuum, filled by some principles from NGOs and industry groups such as the International Capital Market Association, which has a list of acceptable use of proceeds. But there is a glaring lack of an acceptable legal definition. This is not the case globally—China has a legal definition—but we need much more co-operation to create our own in Europe, and a more accepted global standard.
What can the Government do to maintain leadership? We are seeing from around the world what can be done to support growth in green finance. The European Commission has this month indicated support for regulatory incentives that would encourage banks to shift their balance sheets in a green direction, by allowing them to take on more leverage against assets with a positive environmental impact. France last year became the largest sovereign issuer of green bonds, raising €7 billion to fund energy transition. There are other illustrations as well.
We must not miss this opportunity, because the appetite is clearly there. In September a €600-million bond sold by SSE became the largest bond with a green label attached so far issued by a UK company, with the funds being used to finance onshore wind farms. As has been stated before, Barclays sold the first green bond from a UK financial institution linked to assets in the UK. But there is an issue about how some of our rivals are dealing with these opportunities. This is an important challenge for the City of London, and the noble Lord who has had such a distinguished career in the City made a very useful contribution.
Earlier this month, Fromageries Bel, the French multinational cheesemaker perhaps best known for the brand Mini Babybel, extended a credit agreement with a group of banks, comprising a €520 million revolving credit facility made up of a consortium of banks, including Société Générale, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Commerce Bank, KBC Bank and a few others. It is interesting that this renewed credit agreement includes environmental and social impact criteria linked to the company’s sustainable development strategy. It is a pioneering credit facility tying a credit line to environmental and social performance. These sorts of challenges have been taken up round the world and to maintain our leadership position we have to do more.
We are starting to promote electric vehicles. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham talked about sales of petrol and diesel vehicles ending by 2040. We have a massive issue with millions of lithium-ion batteries that will need to be recycled or reused each year, as required by existing law. Indeed, we have no such facility in the UK and we have to think about what our requirements will be over time. Perhaps in this area we can show that we have moved on and adopt a more collaborative approach to the way in which the market might be encouraged or supported to meet that challenge within the context of the industrial strategy or other initiatives. The Government take the view that this issue will be for the market to determine. The consensus in the Chamber for more progress, and more co-operation to achieve it, was adequately reflected in the debate. I hope that the Minister will respond in kind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I will leave lithium batteries and the recycling thereof for another day. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, will be prepared to accept a letter on that slightly more detailed subject than the broader themes with which we have engaged in this debate.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate and introducing it. I join my sometime noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes—I suppose that is how I should address him—in congratulating his sometime noble friends on the Liberal Benches on the extraordinary contributions of the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—the former colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes—in producing four speakers in this debate. As my noble friend Lord Barker implied, we achieved much during the coalition years. I particularly remember undertaking with my noble friend a great deal of work on anaerobic digestion, the energy that can come from that and the successful removal of waste from the waste stream as a result. It is a minor point but it was very important in terms of recycling and green energy. The coalition achieved much and I hope that in what I will say I can convince noble Lords who were formerly noble friends—I refer particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, with whom I served on the coalition—that we will continue to achieve those results, no doubt with them prodding us along, as we continue not with a coalition Government but with a Conservative one.
I welcome all the contributions we have had on this important agenda. I congratulate noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches on their recent report on a clean, green and carbon-free Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and, I think, other noble Lords referred to the recent City of London report and the FSB’s report. I give an assurance that we will look very carefully at those.
Only a week ago, the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans, Lord Mendelsohn and others, debated our industrial strategy, which sets out how the United Kingdom will build on its strengths and maintain its global leadership in a fast-changing world. The industrial strategy recognises clean growth as a great opportunity that we must pursue. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will remember, we set out our clean growth strategy earlier than the industrial strategy, but the industrial strategy made it clear that, of the four “grand challenges”, clean growth was one of the main ones. It is a challenge facing us and all the major economies in the world—and the minor economies, for that matter.
Our clean growth strategy demonstrates that it is entirely possible to grow our economy while cutting emissions. Indeed, in 2016 the United Kingdom’s emissions were 42% lower than in 1990, while GDP increased by 67% over the same period. To all those Jeremiahs who say that you cannot have a reduction in emissions and GDP growth in the same period, the figures for this country show that that is not the case. Furthermore, PwC recently published a report that showed that the United Kingdom’s average annual reduction in carbon intensity over the past 16 years has been greater than that of any other G20 nation.
That global transition towards green growth cannot happen without our financial sector, which is the main subject of the debate today. The pursuit of cleaner growth implies a great change in the way we invest, from households to large institutions. All investments and purchases are relevant. In the last 10 years, for example, we have seen global green bond issuance grow from zero to reach more than £100 billion last year. I believe that we are already a global leader in green finance, and the Government entirely agree with the strong case for the United Kingdom to remain so and for our whole economy to be resilient to climate change, which is the second of the noble Lord’s debate Motion. If I can frame it as two questions, the first is the need to remain a global leader and the second is the need to ensure the resilience of the economy to climate change. Our industrial strategy and our clean growth strategy set out the ambitious first steps that we have taken to ensure not only that the United Kingdom captures this opportunity but that we will remain the leading standard-setter in the sector as it develops.
The United Kingdom is widely recognised as a global financial powerhouse. In the Global Financial Centres Index, London has been rated as the top financial centre in the world since 2015. It might be that the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party does not think that the City should have quite such dominant power, but most of us welcome it and are grateful that it is so successful and provides so many jobs and funds for the Exchequer to pay for the services that the Government need to provide. It is only natural that the United Kingdom is well placed to build on our global leadership in green finance, which is what we want to do. It is an important part of the United Kingdom’s leadership in tackling climate change. I assure the right reverend Prelate and others that we want to show leadership in tackling climate change, because green finance matters to both the financial and climate change agendas, domestically and internationally. I assure noble Lords that government work on green finance does not take place solely within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which I have the honour to represent here.
On the international stage, the Bank of England is co-chairing the G20 sustainable finance study group with China, and government as a whole has established formal green finance partnerships with Brazil and China. Domestically, BEIS and the Treasury both work in close collaboration on green finance, and at official level the work has received support from 11 different departments so far.
We have also seen significant leadership on green finance from the private sector. Barclays recently listed a €500 million green bond and HSBC committed to provide $100 billion of financing and investment to develop low-carbon technologies and projects. The London Stock Exchange has attracted more than 60 green bond listings, raising over $20 billion in seven different currencies. We want to do all we can to encourage the profitability of green finance. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that we want London to be the leader of that. Indeed, as that famous Londoner, the great lexicographer Dr Johnson, so eloquently put it many years ago:
“There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money”.
We want the City to continue to do that in green finance as well.
As such, BEIS and the Treasury have jointly established an industry-led United Kingdom green finance task force. That was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barker, who, also describing himself as an optimist, welcomed that task force, which will develop long-term, ambitious policies in close collaboration with the private sector. The task force brings together senior leaders from across the financial sector, including representatives from big banks such as HSBC, Barclays, Aviva, the London Stock Exchange and the Bank of England. It has already consulted over 100 stakeholders and will publish its final report in the spring, providing green finance recommendations for the Government to consider.
On Tuesday, three of those UK green finance task force members gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. I have not yet seen the detailed transcript but I look forward to it, as I imagine do other noble Lords. However, I understand that the task force was discussed, among other issues, and that those members were supportive of our green finance work. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who referred to the recent news of the sharp drop in investment in renewable infrastructure in the Bloomberg report, will accept that our support for clean energy has led to dramatic falls in the costs of renewable technologies—which, again, my noble friend Lord Barker referred to—and will accept that the UK green finance task force will look at ways in which the Government can facilitate investment in further low-carbon deals.
That brings me to just one or two of the questions at this stage which were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was looking for more retail products; again, we would like the green finance task force to look at this issue and at lending for both households and businesses. We hope to see the sector itself develop new products—green bonds, for example—in the near future. But again, we are looking for advice on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked what the Government would be doing on green mortgages. In our green growth strategy we committed to working with mortgage lenders to develop more products in that field. We published a call for evidence alongside the green growth strategy, seeking views on proposals for supporting more products of that sort, particularly green mortgages. That can be looked at by the task force.
The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Mountevans, referred to Fifteen Steps to Green Finance published by the Green Finance Initiative in association with E3G. Did the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, say he was at the launch or perhaps it was at the creation of the Green Finance Initiative? He will correct me, no doubt, in due course if I have got that wrong. Both work as part of the green finance task force. We will certainly want to work closely with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned the sovereign green bond. We support the United Kingdom issuance of green bonds and the London Stock Exchange listing of those 60 or so green bonds to date, but for the Government to go down that route we would really have to show that they were cost-effective to the taxpayer. However, nothing is ruled out and it is something that can be looked at in the future.
I move on now to the sale of the Green Investment Bank, which the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Dykes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, very much regretted. We want to help the private sector build on its strengths and drive the development of the green finance sector. The core objective of the Green Investment Bank was to mobilise greater private sector green investment. It was a profitable sale—even the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, admitted it was profitable but not as profitable as if he had sold it himself—and demonstrated the bank’s success in acting as a commercial entity and the case for green investment.
Under public ownership the Green Investment Group leveraged some £2.50 of third-party investment for every £1 it invested. Macquarie, the purchaser, has committed to maintain the Green Investment Group’s green values as part of its successful bid and a successful share has been established to safeguard the Green Investment Group’s green purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to his role as one of the independent trustees. We are very grateful for the work he has taken on and I am sure he will perform it with extraordinary diligence. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, regret that he is unpaid for that but I do not think it will affect his excellent work in any way and the key role that he has played in the development of that special share, particularly now that he is one of the independent trustees.
The GIG continues to demonstrate leadership in the green sector. For example, it recently launched a ground-breaking pay-as-you-save energy efficiency service with no up-front costs for medium and large energy consumers in the United Kingdom. It is taking a proactive role in the green finance task force and has already made a number of significant green investments.
I did not think I would get through the debate without Brexit coming through. My noble friend Lady Featherstone questioned what might happen with Brexit and sought assurance on the implications. As we proceed to the exit, the Government will continue to utilise our entire global network to promote the UK as a destination to invest in, and as we move to the second phase of negotiations we will certainly explore our future relationship with EU bodies such as the European Investment Bank. At the Autumn Budget, the Government also set up a new dedicated subsidiary of the British Business Bank to become a leading UK-based investor in patient capital across the UK. That new subsidiary will be capitalised with £2.5 billion, which further complements the Government’s recent announcement of investing £2.5 billion in low-carbon innovation from 2015 to 2021.
In the last minute or two that I have, I will briefly touch on the resilience of the financial sector to climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly noted the importance—as well as building on the UK’s global leadership in green finance—of ensuring that the UK financial sector is resilient. The Government already work with the insurance industry on physical risk, as mentioned by many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Barker referred to the excellent work done by my right honourable friend Michael Gove at Defra through its Flood Re scheme, which works with insurers to help provide householders at the highest flood risk with affordable insurance. We are particularly interested in that, given recent disasters in the north-west. We continue to demonstrate this global leadership through DfID’s recent establishment of the Centre for Global Disaster Protection.
In the time available to me, I will not be able to give this part of the noble Lord’s debate the coverage it deserves. I hope that he and others are happy for me to write to them in greater detail, particularly on some of the recommendations we have received from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures—very important recommendations indeed that need to be dealt with. Since I have now used up my 20 minutes, I very much hope that the noble Lord will accept a letter on that.
We share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his party that the United Kingdom offers its leadership in this area. Through our clean growth strategy and our industrial strategy, we have put in place the tools to enable us to do so. We will continue to work collaboratively within government across all departments and all parties, and we welcome the occasional prod from our former colleagues in coalition on this issue. We also hope for further prods from the private sector and others to ensure that we effectively build on the UK’s strengths in green finance.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It is last business on Thursday so I will obviously need to be brief. To put this beyond doubt, I should say that I and my fellow eco-warriors feel it entirely appropriate that we are not remunerated as trustees of the Green Purposes Company.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barker, for his work over many years on distributed energy and the work he did in the coalition. The Minister is right: we worked very well together in this whole subject area as part of the coalition. The enemy was the Treasury, but I suspect that that is government, whether in coalition or not.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, on having achieved this Green Finance Initiative and the report Fifteen Steps to Green Finance. It is eminently readable and sensible and is a superb agenda that a Government of whatever colour should be able to deliver. My noble friend Lady Kramer drilled down and offered challenges. The right reverend Prelate spoke about social responsibility and particularly the role of DfID, which I did not mention but is incredibly important. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about transparency. I do not know what I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. I think that microwaves are pretty efficient. Unfortunately the real enemies are probably people like me who are Aga owners—I think we are the real enemies of megawatt hours when it comes to preparing food. I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople, particularly my noble friend Lady Featherstone, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his usual insights. Of course, they have to be here, given the weighty positions they hold as Front-Bench spokespeople.
I say again to the Minister and to the Government: catch this wave. There is that opportunity: it is a sweet moment, so let us get on and do it. I have one disappointment, but I recognise that the noble Lord is not a Treasury Minister. The one thing we could and should do to lay down a marker as a nation—as the City—is to have a green sovereign bond. If we do not, we are saying we are out of this important market, so I ask the noble Lord to take that back and discuss it further with his Treasury colleagues.
I thank all your Lordships for your contributions.